From: Joel Peter William Pitt (extropy@paradise.net.nz)
Date: Mon Jul 26 2004 - 16:20:09 MDT
Tommy McCabe wrote:
>
>There is no reason to stop with 100 transistors.
>However, in order to get a capacitance of "all the
>hard disks (~1*10^11 bytes each) * made this year
>(~1.5^10^8) * the number of years this universe has
>been around (~1.3*10^10)", with 100 transistors, each
>transistor would have to have a capcity of 1.95*10^27
>(feel free to check my math) bits. That strikes me as
>unlikely, considering that is larger than the number
>of atoms in an entire chip with millions of
>transistors. Going by my math, if there is only 1
>electron that changes spin per transistor, and there
>are only two states for each electron, there are 2^100
>(which is around 10^32) states for the chip to be in,
>but only 100 bits of storage capacity, which is puny
>even by 1960's standards.
>
>
From a discussion with a friend who is
researching error correction in quantum controllers
I remember him mentioning that
these electrons can have an infinite number
of states (ranging from on and off at the same
time and other fuzzy arrangements), the only
problem will be developing the technology to
read and maniuplate these states with
sufficient precision.
(I don't claim to be a physicist, but that is the
discussion as I remember it, other more
educated people can feel free to correct me ;-)
Cheers,
Joel
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 21 2006 - 04:22:43 MST