The limit of computer speed will be reached in only 75 years

2009-10-15 13:16:44

#26

Finray: Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro; +2,629|6048|Catherine Black

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
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.

Wait, but, if it reflected almost 100% of light, wouldn't it just be black?

2009-10-15 13:19:04

#27

GC_PaNzerFIN: Work and study @ Technical Uni; +528|6674|Finland

Finray wrote:
GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
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.
Wait, but, if it reflected almost 100% of light, wouldn't it just be black?

no it blends to the background.

3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8

2009-10-15 13:22:49

#28

Ilocano: buuuurrrrrrppppp.......; +341|6927

Finray wrote:
Wait, but, if it reflected almost 100% of light, wouldn't it just be black?

Black if it absorbed all light.

2009-10-15 13:42:42

#29

Finray: Hup! Dos, Tres, Cuatro; +2,629|6048|Catherine Black

Ilocano wrote:
Finray wrote:
Wait, but, if it reflected almost 100% of light, wouldn't it just be black?
Black if it absorbed all light.

Right, and white if it reflected all.

2009-10-15 13:46:00

#30

GC_PaNzerFIN: Work and study @ Technical Uni; +528|6674|Finland

A rough example from movie Predator.

https://homepage.mac.com/cbauer/hunter/stills/behind/invisible/completedcloak.jpg

3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8

2009-10-15 14:17:04

#31

CrazeD: Member; +368|6933|Maine

That article makes no sense.

You can always compute faster, simply by having more. If one core can process (note: small numbers for simplicity's sake) 100 calculations per second, then two cores can process 200 calculations per second (in a perfect world, of course).

I don't see how there can be a limit.

2009-10-15 14:29:44

#32

Agent_Dung_Bomb: Member; +302|6996|Salt Lake City

I don't think he meant reflect, he meant refract. The light is bent around the object so as to appear to make the object invisible.

Last edited by Agent_Dung_Bomb (2009-10-15 14:31:15)

2009-10-15 14:31:34

#33

Monkey Spanker: Show it to the nice monkey.; +284|6512|England

I love the way you guys know better than physicists who have probably spent years studying this equation. here is a link to the whole paper if you wish to make sense of it (4 pages 0f mostly equations)
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/090 … 3417v2.pdf

Quote of the year so far "Fifa 11 on the other hand... shiny things for mongos "-mtb0minime

https://bf3s.com/sigs/f30415b2d1cff840176cce816dc76d89a7929bb0.png

2009-10-15 14:36:08

#34

GC_PaNzerFIN: Work and study @ Technical Uni; +528|6674|Finland

smuder201 wrote:
I love the way you guys know better than physicists who have probably spent years studying this equation. here is a link to the whole paper if you wish to make sense of it (4 pages 0f mostly equations)
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/090 … 3417v2.pdf

Ppl used to think earth is flat, were they right?

I am saying you can't predict what kinda innovations there will be. The next big thing could very well shake the whole basis of our understanding of universe. Theories get proven wrong, fixed to be more accurate as the science advances.

edit: and about reflect / refract, there are multiple theories of possible ways to achieve partial invisibility.

One way is to create mirror-like surface (reflect light in certain way) or refract (bend light that hits the object so it looks transparent). I think there are scientists working on both atm.

Last edited by GC_PaNzerFIN (2009-10-15 14:39:35)

3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8

2009-10-15 14:40:52

#35

Monkey Spanker: Show it to the nice monkey.; +284|6512|England

If nothing else this equation will provoke more study into this area by physicists. Also can you tell me the meaning of the equation or is this just arm chair physics on all our parts?

Quote of the year so far "Fifa 11 on the other hand... shiny things for mongos "-mtb0minime

2009-10-15 14:45:16

#36

GC_PaNzerFIN: Work and study @ Technical Uni; +528|6674|Finland

smuder201 wrote:
If nothing else this equation will provoke more study into this area by physicists. Also can you tell me the meaning of the equation or is this just arm chair physics on all our parts?

Advanced quantum physics. I would say thats well over my head. I will probably never see that complex equations in my life.

Last edited by GC_PaNzerFIN (2009-10-15 14:45:40)

3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8

2009-10-15 14:47:42

#37

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|6967|67.222.138.85

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.

I know they didn't, that's the point. I want to know what it is and how they arrived at that answer. It seems to be bounded by more than the speed of light.

CrazeD wrote:
You can always compute faster, simply by having more. If one core can process (note: small numbers for simplicity's sake) 100 calculations per second, then two cores can process 200 calculations per second (in a perfect world, of course).

There is a practical difference between speed of calculations and number of calculations that can be performed simultaneously. In most instances the next calculation is dependent on the one before it, so adding infinitely many processors isn't really the same thing as one incredibly fast processor.

2009-10-15 14:50:10

#38

Ilocano: buuuurrrrrrppppp.......; +341|6927

smuder201 wrote:
If nothing else this equation will provoke more study into this area by physicists. Also can you tell me the meaning of the equation or is this just arm chair physics on all our parts?

Covered some of that back in college, but with no utilization for over 20 years, I'm brain dead as far as calculations are concerned.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:
There is a practical difference between speed of calculations and number of calculations that can be performed simultaneously. In most instances the next calculation is dependent on the one before it, so adding infinitely many processors isn't really the same thing as one incredibly fast processor.

Fuzzy Logic would benefit from an infinitisimal amount of processors.

Last edited by Ilocano (2009-10-15 14:53:15)

2009-10-15 15:02:24

#39

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|6967|67.222.138.85

From the article, I believe that they are looking at the smallest amount of time that it would take to change with relative certainty a single qubit to a different value. The difference between what they did and what was done before is that while other people assumed that the bit had to be changed completely, they looked at the time it would take for the energy state to approach the new value with the bounds remaining "tight". Then they proved that this pretty damn close approximation is valid with a bunch of quantum physics I'm not going to pretend to understand.

In any case the article didn't do the paper justice. It is worth it to read the first 3/4 of the first page, not really any math involved.

2009-10-15 15:07:33

#40

GC_PaNzerFIN: Work and study @ Technical Uni; +528|6674|Finland

If quantum physics can go only that far, there is nothing stopping a completely new technology from being invented in next 75 years.

3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8

2009-10-15 15:07:56

#41

[HOF]Mercenary: o_O; +53|6438

I would never have guessed that BF2's had so many users that know far more then the apparently bat shit guys at Boston University!

Gee golly - I have no degrees but my common sense is far superior to their research!

2009-10-15 15:14:36

#42

Ilocano: buuuurrrrrrppppp.......; +341|6927

[HOF]Mercenary wrote:
I would never have guessed that BF2's had so many users that know far more then the apparently bat shit guys at Boston University!

Gee golly - I have no degrees but my common sense is far superior to their research!

There are a ton of scientists, physicists, and mathematicians who are so set in their ways, that they refuse to acknowledge new trains of thought. Take string theory for example.

2009-10-15 16:13:24

#43

GR34: Member; +215|6805|ALBERTA> CANADA

they will find a way of making some othe compound do computing like some form of crystal to do all of the processing and stay room temp

2009-10-15 16:17:51

#44

.Sup: be nice; +2,646|6713|The Twilight Zone

smuder201 wrote:
If nothing else this equation will provoke more study into this area by physicists. Also can you tell me the meaning of the equation or is this just arm chair physics on all our parts?

Well its still theory.

https://www.shrani.si/f/3H/7h/45GTw71U/untitled-1.png

2009-10-15 17:45:08

#45

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|6967|67.222.138.85

Ilocano wrote:
[HOF]Mercenary wrote:
I would never have guessed that BF2's had so many users that know far more then the apparently bat shit guys at Boston University!

Gee golly - I have no degrees but my common sense is far superior to their research!
There are a ton of scientists, physicists, and mathematicians who are so set in their ways, that they refuse to acknowledge new trains of thought. Take string theory for example.

I hope you mean that string theorists that have now been making more and more complex yet practically useless theories for 20 years when you say scientists who are set in their ways.

2009-10-15 19:49:58

#46

Defiance: Member; +438|6931

[HOF]Mercenary wrote:
I would never have guessed that BF2's had so many users that know far more then the apparently bat shit guys at Boston University!

Gee golly - I have no degrees but my common sense is far superior to their research!

No one's arguing their research, only suggesting that our current understanding of physics is not perfect. Which it isn't.

2009-10-15 22:13:09

#47

Stubbee: Religions Hate Facts, Questions and Doubts; +223|7003|Reality

Duotronics Ftw

The US economy is a giant Ponzi scheme. And 'to big to fail' is code speak for 'niahnahniahniahnah 99 percenters'

2009-10-15 22:33:15

#48

VicktorVauhn: Member; +319|6652|Southern California

[HOF]Mercenary wrote:
I would never have guessed that BF2's had so many users that know far more then the apparently bat shit guys at Boston University!

Gee golly - I have no degrees but my common sense is far superior to their research!

TBH the only people in this thread who have really pretended to even know what they are talking about, or what the scientists are talking about are those who are defending the article.

Those of us who disagree are not saying we know the answer... just that what we know, and what is "possible" typically goes through dramatic shifts in the span of 75 years.

2009-10-15 23:06:05

#49

KuSTaV: noice; +947|6771|Gold Coast

lol

I think there will be a different way to process information in the future. I mean, sure, 75 years ago we had near nothing in terms of computing technology (on a scale relative to today). However, another part of me says that 75 years is too long, and it could actually be shorter by the time we actually reach that capacity.

But what would I know, Im 17, lol.

Last edited by KuSTaV (2009-10-15 23:06:23)

noice

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/26774/awsmsanta.png

2009-10-15 23:58:11

#50

Defiance: Member; +438|6931

KuSTaV wrote:
lol

But what would I know, Im 17, lol.

Yet you have enough common sense to recognize that 75 years is a very long time in terms of science or, more so, technology. Just don't say lol so much.

BF2S Forums The limit of computer speed will be reached in only 75 years

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

Finray wrote:

GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

Finray wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

Finray wrote:

smuder201 wrote:

smuder201 wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

CrazeD wrote:

smuder201 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

[HOF]Mercenary wrote:

smuder201 wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

[HOF]Mercenary wrote:

[HOF]Mercenary wrote:

[HOF]Mercenary wrote:

KuSTaV wrote:

Board footer