Physicist Proposes a New Type of Computing 60
SpankiMonki writes "Joshua Turner, a physicist at the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory, has proposed using the orbits of electrons around the nucleus of an atom as a new means to generate the binary states used in computing. Turner calls his idea orbital computing. Turner points to recent discoveries (including a new material that allows rapid switching of its electron states and new low-power terahertz laser technology) that could lead to the development of a computer with vastly improved performance over current technologies."
Imagine one of these running Android! (Score:5, Funny)
The catch is that to generate a tight enough pulse of sufficient intensity to do this, you need an accelerator two miles long. But if you manage that, you can switch electron states 10,000 times faster than transistor states can be switched.
Ok, so it won't be a portable device...
Re:Imagine one of these running Android! (Score:4, Funny)
No, but imagine a beowulf cluster of....
nevermind...
Ray was right! (Score:4, Funny)
Disclaimer: posted in jest to rile up all the Kurzweil haters. Where's your "hit the limit of silicon" argument now, huh?
Re: (Score:1)
No, you're thinking of her best friend.
Re: (Score:1)
Ray will be right eventually, but he is off on his time scales by wide margin. For one thing, in his estimates he adheres to the transistor = neuron fallacy. He then builds on this fallacy to estimate a time when the number of transistors on a chip will equal the number of neurons in the human brain. We are already at hundreds of millions on transistors on our chips!! And the human brain only has about 20 billion neurons!! We aren't that far away !!! [HEAVY BREATHING]
The whole problem with this is that in r
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
To be fair, a digitally-switching transistor is almost infinitely simpler than a neuron, but you could make the argument that a transistor configured in analog mode that summed several inputs and acted as a decision maker is much closer to a neuron. The trick is getting all of those transistors working together in some sort of "analog computer" fashion, as the brain's network reconfigures itself quite a bit, which is a lot harder
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need your own dedicated fab, you just need your own masks. Those will run you on the order of 100-150k per layer (and a modern CPU like the i7 has around 20 layers).
Still not cheap, but a few million vs a few billion means the difference between "not gonna happen" and "bo
Re: (Score:2)
Using human neurons as a model for the future of computing might not be the utopia that we are all dreaming of....
Re: (Score:2)
Sure go right ahead - keep imagining how the machines will be built.
Next thing you know it's Skynet.
Re:Ray was right! (Score:4, Informative)
You're making up numbers. We've had billions of transistors on chips for some time now. The XBox One's main chip has five billion transistors. And that's just one chip. The Titan supercomputer has nearly 200 trillion transistors.
If the transistor doubling time remains about the same, you can equate any number of transistors you like to a neuron and Kurzweil's prediction still won't be off by much. Such is the nature of exponential curves. Sophisticated objections to his predictions don't involve transistor counts.
Nobody knows how much of a neuron you need to build a brain. If you actually have to simulate it, possibly at the quantum level, then no number of transistors may be sufficient. You can probably get around that problem by not using regular transistors though. Sufficient artificial neurons might actually be easier to build - noise and interference are probably not as harmful as they are in regular computing, and may actually be beneficial.
Re: (Score:2)
Ray will be right eventually, but he is off on his time scales by wide margin.
That's good news. I was getting concerned about my construction plans. I'll have another load of bricks dumped in my yard every week until my new mansion emerges.
Re: (Score:2)
I admit you got me at first. I guess I was never a fan of people determined to turn science and technology into religions. Those topics are already cool enough as they are. Plus there are enough faith-based alternatives for that kind of thing if it feels like it's something you need in your life.
Re: (Score:1)
all predictive based sciences are now religions. thanks for that update.
Re: (Score:2)
They're not. But there seem to be a whole bunch of people who like to turn to science or technology for some type of transcendent experience or something.
"Oh almighty computer, how powerful you are! Surely your intellect will excel beyond us puny humans soon. I am so unworthy. *Grovel*"
It's just a desire to have something to take the place of what the faithful crowd use some omnipotent god for. All over a tool that can do pointless drudgery work quickly and efficiently so that us humans can spend our time
Re: (Score:2)
Ack! Should have read more carefully before posting. Not "pointless drudgery" - there's definitely a point to it. More like tedious drudgery to support the interesting bits.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I was expecting some kind of halfway-to-quantum paradigm. As impressive as the speed claims are, it seems to be just logic as usual.
New push for inovations? (Score:1)
Re:New push for inovations? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm dreaming of a technology to finally teach people where and where not to use apostrophes.
Well, for all intense purposes the apostrophe's are fine and no barrier to understanding irregardless of weather or not they are bad grammer.
Re: (Score:3)
New Type of "Computing" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:New Type of "Computing" (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm, I'm not so sure. Unless I'm missing something in the article the proposal does not offer anything new toward quantum computing. The advantages listed are the ability to switch electron states very quickly to improve RAM speeds and being able to read the spin of electrons - both without requiring excessive power to drive it.
I'm not sure how quantum computers compare to TMs. After some quick browsing it looks like they don't have the computational speed potential of the (only theoretical) non-determinis
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
In your first reply you mentioned that computers are based on binary logic - on or off. I thought you were getting at quantum computing where you can have a combination of the two.
From the article - "One is the discovery of a material that allows electrons to switch states really quickly that could improve magnetic random access memory speeds by a factor of thousand." So, yeah, that's essentially what I said.
If the difference is that a single electron can store on or more bits then this is definitely equiva
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I read it that even if the orbital states ain't the variable, the fact that there are 8 electrons in the outermost shell enables a byte to be stored per atom.
Wouldn't that only allow storing three bits, not eight? You can't tell which of the eight electrons are in the outermost shell, just how many there are, so the possible values are 0-8, not 0-255. Nine unique states gives you three bits plus one state left over.
Re: (Score:3)
Quantum computers already eschew binary thinking with the way that they manage their data, but they are still simply Turing Machines, albeit, theoretically much faster Turing Machines. But given enough time and memory, a classical computer is capable of perfectly simulating a quantum computer, and at least based on the summary, it sounds like the same would be the case here.
This may be something neat, but unless it offers something more than a new way to represent bits, it won't mean that we can solve new s
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. The problem of a "new type of computing" is a math problem, not an engineering one.
If we ever see a new kind of computing, it will be due to theoretical computer science / mathematics, not physics/engineering.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but not in the way the GP was hoping (barring a major breakthrough in mathematics/theoretical computer science)
All computers (even quantum computers) are basically the same. They are all Turing Machines. Some are just much faster than others. This machine won't be radically different, regardless of what the hardware is.
Car analogy:
If existing PC's are gasoline-driven cars, the GP was hoping for an airplane. What t
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, not so much a "hope" for me though. When I read the title I just really doubted they meant to say what it sounded like they were saying. And sure enough, they didn't.
There very likely isn't any computational model that can solve any problems that some TM equivalent method can't. It's just a matter of doing them faster.
How fast is the observation? (Score:3)
So we can switch states really fast, which is excellent, but how fast is our observation? If the observation needs to be made in order to switch to the next gate then we have our bottle neck. The article was sparse on details and didn't seem to answer this question.
Re: (Score:2)
Details... maybe this will be the practical interface to optical interconnection?
Spintronics (Score:2, Interesting)
Whatever happened with Spintronics [wikipedia.org]?
In theory these systems could be great. What I worry about is if they will be stable enough.
Of course, this is using orbitals, which generally are a more stable element with regards to electrons and their speedy existence.
I don't think they decay spontaneously, do they?
With all these ideas, it makes me wonder what one is going to come first, this, optical computing, quantum computing, superconductive computing, ternary computing and others.
I'd love to see Ternary, persona
The most important question ever (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
2nd most important.
The most important question would be, "How well does it run Crysis?*"
* I haven't kept my finger on the pulse of gaming for some time; is Crysis still the benchmark for ridiculously complex and detailed graphics?
Re: (Score:3)
Crysis 3 is the new king of card tests, followed by Battlefield 3/4 and Metro: Last Light. Crysis 1 sees some benchmarking still, but since it can be maxed out fairly easily now (60FPS at max settings, 1080p on a single 280X or 770) it's no longer a true system-killer.
If you're asking where Crysis 2 is on the list, well, it isn't.
Can we do the same thing with Earth's orbit? (Score:2)