• Index » 
  • Community » 
  • Tech » 
  • The limit of computer speed will be reached in only 75 years
HellHead
The fantastic Mr. Antichrist
+336|6969|Germany
This is pretty interesting.
I never would have guessed there could be some kind of borderline for processor speed.

WASHINGTON (ISNS) -- With the speed of computers so regularly seeing dramatic increases in their processing speed, it seems that it shouldn't be too long before the machines become infinitely fast -- except they can't. A pair of physicists has shown that computers have a speed limit as unbreakable as the speed of light. If processors continue to accelerate as they have in the past, we'll hit the wall of faster processing in less than a century.

Intel co-founder Gordon Moore predicted 40 years ago that manufacturers could double computing speed every two years or so by cramming ever-tinier transistors on a chip. His prediction became known as Moore's Law, and it has held true throughout the evolution of computers
-- the fastest processor today beats out a ten-year-old competitor by a factor of about 30.

If components are to continue shrinking, physicists must eventually code bits of information onto ever smaller particles. Smaller means faster in the microelectronic world, but physicists Lev Levitin and Tommaso Toffoli at Boston University in Massachusetts, have slapped a speed limit on computing, no matter how small the components get.

"If we believe in Moore's law...then it would take about 75 to 80 years to achieve this quantum limit," Levitin said.

"No system can overcome that limit. It doesn't depend on the physical nature of the system or how it's implemented, what algorithm you use for computation ... any choice of hardware and software," Levitin said. "This bound poses an absolute law of nature, just like the speed of light."

Scott Aaronson, an assistant professor of electrical engineering and computer science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, thought Levitin's estimate of 75 years extremely optimistic.
Moore's Law, he said, probably won't hold for more than 20 years.

In the early 1980s, Levitin singled out a quantum elementary operation, the most basic task a quantum computer could carry out. In a paper published today in the journal Physical Review Letters, Levitin and Toffoli present an equation for the minimum sliver of time it takes for this elementary operation to occur. This establishes the speed limit for all possible computers.
Using their equation, Levitin and Toffoli calculated that, for every unit of energy, a perfect quantum computer spits out ten quadrillion more operations each second than today's fastest processors.

"It's very important to try to establish a fundamental limit -- how far we can go using these resources," Levitin explained.

The physicists pointed out that technological barriers might slow down Moore's law as we approach this limit. Quantum computers, unlike electrical ones, can't handle "noise" -- a kink in a wire or a change in temperature can cause havoc. Overcoming this weakness to make quantum computing a reality will take time and more research.

As computer components are packed tighter and tighter together, companies are finding that the newer processors are getting hotter sooner than they are getting faster.  Hence the recent trend in duo and quad-core processing; rather than build faster processors, manufacturers place them in tandem to keep the heat levels tolerable while computing speeds shoot up. Scientists who need to churn through vast numbers of calculations might one day turn to superconducting computers cooled to drastically frigid temperatures. But even with these clever tactics, Levitin and Toffoli said, there's no getting past the fundamental speed limit.

Aaronson called it beautiful that such a limit exists.

"From a theorist's perspective, it's good to know that fundamental limits are there, sort of an absolute ceiling," he said. "You may say it's disappointing that we can't build infinitely fast computers, but as a picture of the world, if you have a theory of physics allows for infinitely fast computation, there could be a problem with that theory."
http://www.livescience.com/technology/0 … speed.html
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6841|SE London

Bullshit. Too many unpredictable factors to make any sort of assumption like that.
GC_PaNzerFIN
Work and study @ Technical Uni
+528|6674|Finland

There have always been innovations. I doubt there won't be more.
3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8
Benzin
Member
+576|6258
Cooling and the number of cores. The problem is also that so many programs nowadays can't even use 4 cores properly. What about 6 and 8 core systems? I guess the die size will get larger in some way, but you'll always have a faster machine so long as the architecture is there to use all the available cores, right?

Quantum computing is the future, though. It's going to be a bit before we get there, though.
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6967|67.222.138.85
I do not understand what the limit is besides the speed of light.

The article does not seem to be written very well. It doesn't explain exactly why there is an upper limit, it doesn't use Moore's law quite right, and it just seems to be very dumbed-down.
Finray
Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro
+2,629|6048|Catherine Black

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I do not understand what the limit is besides the speed of light.

The article does not seem to be written very well. It doesn't explain exactly why there is an upper limit, it doesn't use Moore's law quite right, and it just seems to be very dumbed-down.
Yeah, it's talking about consoles, duhr
https://i.imgur.com/qwWEP9F.png
13urnzz
Banned
+5,830|6757

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

and it just seems to be very dumbed-down.
dammit, i liked it. No tech badge for me!
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6861|132 and Bush

Bigger chips.. bring back the WOPR.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Superior Mind
(not macbeth)
+1,755|6952
Eventually we will be working at the atomic level. Building things atom by atom. I think this is the limit they speak of. We can't can't really go smaller than the atom as it is building lock for all matter.
liquidat0r
wtf.
+2,223|6887|UK

Superior Mind wrote:

Building things atom by atom.
We can already do that.
Ilocano
buuuurrrrrrppppp.......
+341|6927

Superior Mind wrote:

Eventually we will be working at the atomic level. Building things atom by atom. I think this is the limit they speak of. We can't can't really go smaller than the atom as it is building lock for all matter.
Actually, Quantum ---> quarks, aka, smaller than atoms.  But what about what has yet to be discovered/applied.  Singularity.  Black holes.  Space-Time factors.
Superior Mind
(not macbeth)
+1,755|6952

Ilocano wrote:

Superior Mind wrote:

Eventually we will be working at the atomic level. Building things atom by atom. I think this is the limit they speak of. We can't can't really go smaller than the atom as it is building lock for all matter.
Actually, Quantum ---> quarks, aka, smaller than atoms.  But what about what has yet to be discovered/applied.  Singularity.  Black holes.  Space-Time factors.
I understand that there are particles smaller than the atom, but the atom is the smallest unit we need to work with as they are what build elements.

liquidat0r wrote:

Superior Mind wrote:

Building things atom by atom.
We can already do that.
On a mass scale? Are there nano-construction factories?

Last edited by Superior Mind (2009-10-15 11:00:06)

Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6861|132 and Bush

Can =/= are.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Ilocano
buuuurrrrrrppppp.......
+341|6927

Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|6996|Salt Lake City

I don't understand the problem people are having understanding the article.

In a paper published today in the journal Physical Review Letters, Levitin and Toffoli present an equation for the minimum sliver of time it takes for this elementary operation to occur. This establishes the speed limit for all possible computers.
Ilocano
buuuurrrrrrppppp.......
+341|6927

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

This establishes the speed limit for all possible computers.
Based on Quantum Mechanics.  200 years ago, we didn't know anything about quantum mechanics, let alone a good understanding of atoms.  Who's to say, by 75 years, we'll have more understanding of the universe beyond quantum mechanics.  Folding space for example.  Klein bottle in practice.
mtb0minime
minimember
+2,418|6914

It's too bad we haven't been investing as much time/money into space programs lately. We'd be so much further along technology-wise.
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6967|67.222.138.85

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

I don't understand the problem people are having understanding the article.

In a paper published today in the journal Physical Review Letters, Levitin and Toffoli present an equation for the minimum sliver of time it takes for this elementary operation to occur. This establishes the speed limit for all possible computers.
What is the speed limit, and how is it calculated?

We are already working at the level of the electron guys. When transistors are packed closer and closer together, the problem with that is you have to start taking into account the electromagnetic effect of the electron flow in the transistors nanometers away. Combined with lowering the operating voltage significantly throughout the years, and what (relatively) few electrons are being thrown around have a relatively large effect on those around it.

edit: Not to mention looking into additional properties of the electron such as spin to use as a stop-gap until quantum computing.
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|6996|Salt Lake City

mtb0minime wrote:

It's too bad we haven't been investing as much time/money into space programs lately. We'd be so much further along technology-wise.
Shhhh, don't let the conservatives here you.  They think NASA and the space program is a total waste of their [Gollum voice]precious[/Gollum voice] tax dollars.  The only technology they view as worthwhile is that which came from military expenditures.
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|6996|Salt Lake City

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

I don't understand the problem people are having understanding the article.

In a paper published today in the journal Physical Review Letters, Levitin and Toffoli present an equation for the minimum sliver of time it takes for this elementary operation to occur. This establishes the speed limit for all possible computers.
What is the speed limit, and how is it calculated?

We are already working at the level of the electron guys. When transistors are packed closer and closer together, the problem with that is you have to start taking into account the electromagnetic effect of the electron flow in the transistors nanometers away. Combined with lowering the operating voltage significantly throughout the years, and what (relatively) few electrons are being thrown around have a relatively large effect on those around it.

edit: Not to mention looking into additional properties of the electron such as spin to use as a stop-gap until quantum computing.
They didn't say what the actual limit was.  They merely said that given that you are limited to the speed of light, they took the smallest possible calculation and the amount of time needed to calculate that it, and came up with some maximum value.

Last edited by Agent_Dung_Bomb (2009-10-15 12:18:05)

Ilocano
buuuurrrrrrppppp.......
+341|6927

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

They didn't say what the actual limit was.  They merely said that given that you are limited to the speed of light, they took the smallest possible calculation and the amount of time needed to calculate that it, and came up with some maximum value.
Unless you consider VSL.  Tachyons?

Last edited by Ilocano (2009-10-15 12:23:57)

Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|6996|Salt Lake City

Ilocano wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

They didn't say what the actual limit was.  They merely said that given that you are limited to the speed of light, they took the smallest possible calculation and the amount of time needed to calculate that it, and came up with some maximum value.
Unless you consider VSL.  Tachyons?
Tachyons are still hypothetical and haven't been proven to exist.  However, there is this quote from wikipedia.

Even if tachyons were conventional, localizable particles, they would still preserve the basic tenets of causality in special relativity and not allow transmission of information faster than light,[3] contrary to what has been written in many works of science fiction.
Ilocano
buuuurrrrrrppppp.......
+341|6927

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

They didn't say what the actual limit was.  They merely said that given that you are limited to the speed of light, they took the smallest possible calculation and the amount of time needed to calculate that it, and came up with some maximum value.
Unless you consider VSL.  Tachyons?
Tachyons are still hypothetical and haven't been proven to exist.  However, there is this quote from wikipedia.

Even if tachyons were conventional, localizable particles, they would still preserve the basic tenets of causality in special relativity and not allow transmission of information faster than light,[3] contrary to what has been written in many works of science fiction.
Yes, for now...   My point is that the OP source makes a blank statement that light and electrons are the be all, end all of computing.  Considering the vastness of space, there has to be something beyond Quantum Mechanics.
Ioan92
Member
+337|5982
This shit is fucking retarded.
GC_PaNzerFIN
Work and study @ Technical Uni
+528|6674|Finland

You CAN'T guess the advancement of science. Who would have known Einstein is going to invent E=MC^2 for example? All happens in time. I am sure sooner or later someone figures out a key ideal of how things work in quantum level or totally put science upside down with new findings.

Its shortsighted to make any statements how the advancement is going to stop. Especially without any explanation why its going to be that way. Science is taking huge leaps right now, in fact a group of scientists actually managed to make object mostly invisible (reflects near 100% of the light), granted, it was super complicated and they could do it only to certain sized and shaped object.

But that i a good example how science can one day figure out things you'd not have even dreamed of some time ago.

Last edited by GC_PaNzerFIN (2009-10-15 12:50:48)

3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8
  • Index » 
  • Community » 
  • Tech » 
  • The limit of computer speed will be reached in only 75 years

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard