So how long do you think it will be before such technoloogy is widely availble to the public?
10 years? Maybe 25?
I'd be more interested in a 128-qbit quantum computer.
There technically are 512 bit cpus but they arent rrally exciting.. the intel xeon phi, i think its only the floating point par that is 512 but so just numwber crunching for science
Consumer desktops and laptops are still being sold with 4 or 8 GB of RAM (every so often you see one with 12 GB of RAM these days) and neither Windows nor standard software has gotten bloated enough to render this insufficient. Meanwhile I use a computer with 32 GB of RAM and an 8 core processor in my laboratory for sequence alignment. Moore's law stopped working as advertised in 2005, so I expect that this state of affairs will continue until either a)quantum computing comes along and upsets things or b)technical progress in computers finally comes to a halt and information technology becomes another ossified industry that was once cutting edge, like cars or petrochemicals. The way things are looking now, I think that quantum computing will be developed the year after they figure out controlled nuclear fusion and world peace.
At this point even an 8 Qbit (or a full quantum byte) computer would be good. From what I heard the max they have achieved so far is something like 5 Qbits or some other odd number.
It doubles about every 10 years
1980 - 8 bit
1990 - 16 bit
2000 - 32 bit
2010 - 64 bit
2020 - 128 bit
2030 - 256 bit
2040 - 512 bit
2050 - 1024 bit
2060 - 2048 bit
2070 - 4096 bit
2080 - 8192 bit
> Google, using an array of 9 superconducting qubits developed by the Martinis group and UCSB, accurately simulates a hydrogen atom.
and there's this nonsense: http://www.dwavesys.com/press-releases/d-wave-systems-breaks-1000-qubit-quantum-computing-barrier
and now d-wave has built an even bigger fake quantum computer ("2000 qubits").
That would be lots of data! xddd
> 1. The aim of this report is not to question or to fight a belief – the right to freedom of belief does not permit that. The aim is to warn against certain tendencies to pass off a belief as science. It is necessary to separate belief from science. It is not a matter of antagonism. Science and belief must be able to coexist. It is not a matter of opposing belief and science, but it is necessary to prevent belief from opposing science.
Stopped reading there.
There is NO evidence of evolution. It is a belief. Objective science doesn't support evolution no matter how many frauds and hoaxes are fabricated to support evolution. The truth always trickles out.
Life doesn't just happen. That alone totally defies the Laws of Science.
The Judeo Christian G-D, made it happen. G-d is the Author of all science. It is no coincidence that leading evolutionists are atheists. THAT is by design. These atheistic evolutionists do not find G-d acceptable in their premises. Their premise is that there is NO G-D.
Would you have sex with something that evolved from an ape?
I'm asexual, so no, I wouldn't have sex with anything.
Too bad. It's interested in you anyway.
In the Old Testament, there are many references made to God leading the Israelites out of bondage in Egypt with a "strong hand and outstretched arm." There, reference to God's hand is clearly metaphorical, as he uses the plagues to free the Israelites, not a giant hand. God is a transcendent being, and thus does not have hands in the human sense. I think that the same is true of where it says in Genesis 2 that God formed man from dust he had gathered; God acts through the natural processes He created to carry out his will, as befits a being of His stature. However, the Bible occasionally using figures of speech should not be taken to detract from its spiritual truth.
I wackyparsed the title as "helps the blind see low-res BBW video," and thought, "Oh my God, who'd want to see that? Not even the blind!"
I guess this is meant to aid those with postpartum blindness?
Having eyeballs that can record everything you see in ultra high definition and have a built in zoom function would be neat, but I'd prefer to keep the eyes I got currently.
The bad thing though is that as soon as they get it perfected someone's gonna figure out out a way to make you watch advertisements on them.
Hello. Coming out of high school with little practice in physics and science, what would be a good book to bridge the high school - university gap? Preferably with little to no color, drawings etc as I would like to print it out and read places that are not at my computer.
Depends on the extent to which you want to pursue physics. In general I would recommend practically any pop-sci book, for example those from the likes of Michio Kaku, Brian Greene, Richard Feynman to name a few. At your level these will serve the purpose of easing you into more abstract concepts; namely quantum/relativistic physics. Hell, even Einstein's popularization "Relativity: The Special And General Theory", almost a pamphlet, will give you a bit of grounding in the area.
Most of all I think Feynman, being basically the father of quantum electrodynamics, is a good starting point. So try his "Six Easy Pieces" first. If you like his style, look for his collection of lectures on physics. These are renowned for their clarity, breadth and insight. It's meant for college freshmen, progressing quickly from mechanics to thermodynamics, electromagnetism. I couldn't really give a better description, however, because I haven't actually read any of it.
>Michio Kaku NO
>Brian Greene NO
These two are speculative at best, and Kaku hits the bong. Seriously.
>Richard Feynman VERY YES,
Get the Lectures On Physics from the second hand book store, because you will be putting notes in the margin. Some things may be dated [especially his insistence on the mystery of QM as there isn't any such thing; it's just probability calculus with complex numbers]
And I found this online, how wonderful is that:
Even if speculative, the foundation for their investigations is solid knowledge (up to QCD and the color charge, at least). And he'll be getting to that stuff anyway, so it would be prudent to at least begin thinking about the subatomic universe.
Start with this: Mechanics by L D Landau and E.M. Lifshitz.
If you can't manage it,, then there is no hope for you.
I saw a book "Manga Guide to Physics" on Amazon the other day. I was kind of curious how it is, but I was reluctant to buy it.
Surely important to make sure Bridge from gravity to quantum mechanics.
and from Atomic orbitals to Periodic table of the elements.
is that the one where they explain stuff from manga and anime like how the pokeball works or goku's commie-ha-ha from dragonball?
"Wolkow said his team demonstrated that a molecule could be controllably charged by a single atom while all adjacent atoms remained neutral."
"Basically, Wolkow's transistor works like this:
The natural electrostatic field from a single silicon atom is permitted to flow through a hydrocarbon molecule bonded to a silicon crystal substrate. One end of the molecule is the "in" electrode, and the other is the "out" electrode; the electricity is then conducted through the hydrocarbon molecule to the tip of a hovering electron tunneling microscope. The microscope tip is the "controlling" electrode -- the on/off switch."
Coming soon: single-quark transistor.
Hello, 4-ch.So, long story short. There's an UFO appearing in my neighbourhood almost every night.
Here's my twitter, you can read all the rest there. I will add more posts to twitter as soon as something interesting happens.
Also, I'm from southern Europe.
In rural Japan
Simply changing the configuration of the X-BOX360 on the Internet
I've got a place to change the house
What it was announced that I exist in a world of double planet somewhere in the American universities?
I think the Internet World
I'm able to visually confirm
Did I announced that the world exists on earth is double the American College of
I'm also in rural Japan
If you change your Internet settings for XBOX360
Internet World that
Nuisance can be checked visually from
What can stop the waves disappear and even temporarily What is it?
এইসব কথা বইল্লা কি করবা?
নিজের চরকাই তেল দাও...OK!!
I'm on the case.
discrete calculations of 1s and 0s in transistors are not capable of harboring sapient life with free will, mental processes may emulate the calculations of computers but they must involve random quantum fluctuations for the being to be truly sapient
transferring control over civilization to electronic beings would be like genociding ourselves and creating simulations of sapient beings to replace us, it would be a huge mistake
No escape from reality.
Open your eyes,
Look up 2: this guy's N.C.
I'm just a poor boy
The event horizon of a black hole is comparable somewhat to the event horizon of the known universe. The big bang apparently started from a single point which is comparable to a singularity. Imperfections in cosmic background radiation could be comparable to the imperfect distribution of matter entering a black hole. However this is not enough evidence.
For this theory to make sense you would need to make the outlandish speculation that time is going backwards in a black hole such that from the perspective of someone inside the black hole it is expanding from a singularity rather than going towards the singularity. There are various problems with this.
1: Light simply doesn't escape the black hole, nothing exceeds the speed of light and starts going backwards in time.
2: Once light or matter reaches the event horizon it is traveling in a straight line towards the singularity, I hear. It would be an eventless universe.
also worth noting that time dilation increases as you near the event horizon, if the trend continues then in theory time would start going backwards
But according to the mathematical model, time slows and stops. It does not at any point move backward.
Then the ultimate question is—if one accepts that theses 1, 2, and 3 are at least possible, which of the following is more likely?
a. We are the one civilization which develops AI simulations and happens not to be in one itself? Or,
b. We are one of the many (billions) of simulations that has run? (Remember point iii.)
In greater detail, his argument attempts to prove the trichotomy, that:
1. intelligent races will never reach a level of technology where they can run simulations of reality so detailed they can be mistaken for reality (or this is impossible in principle); or
It seems to me that any accurate, large scale universe simulation is impossible as a matter of principle. The amount of energy it would take to run, having to simulate every particle in the universe realistically and simultaneously for trillions of years, would be as much or nearly as much energy/matter as there is in the universe. Otherwise the creation of such a simulation would violate things like the law of the conservation of energy in thermodynamics. So that the universe exists at all means that there is no simulation being run, meaning that if any "ancestor" universe exists it also cannot simultaneously exist AND run "our" universe, but we exist so it can't exist, or at least we are not a simulation.
We're talking about another universe you doofus. It may have way more energy available than ours.
Why would it necessarily need to be a large-scale simulation? If one wanted to study something specific (the evolution of societies) and one could run a realistic enough simulation of -that-, one presumably would only need to give the appearance of their being something more out there in the universe (esp. if one wanted the conditions to be similar to one's own universe in order to simulate something like one's own civilization).
"Cogito ergo sum" - "I think therefore I am"
And since I exist, I am assuming everybody else exist as well.
My brain isn't simulating, it's STIMULATING.
Sure, and the one simulating that universe would have more energy available, and the one after that would have more energy, so on and so forth into an effectively infinite amount of energy. Doubtful and there's no reason to believe it's true or even probable, it's superfluous. The simulation of any expanding universe would take up almost the entirety of energy in the simulating universe anyway over the course of time, and we live in an expanding universe.
Actually they would only need to simulate the planet Earth in any great detail and the rest of the universe can just be kind of guestimated.
In practicing celestial navigation, one learns to think of the moon, planets, and stars not as places or even things, but as points of light projected onto a screen for our convenience...
For a lot of history, this was basically true. At this point, our most distant probes are only in the nearest suburbs of our home star. Due to the great distances involved, it becomes necessary to scale down the sensors due to the consumption/lack of power over time. We don't have pictures of the darkness out there, just a stream of numbers and that's not hard to simulate.
So anyway I guess what I'm saying is that you need to simulate at least solar system for this experiment. However you can get quite sloppy in the distant reaches of it if you make the rules of the simulation sufficiently hard (stupid entropy). Somehow I think as we gain the ability to travel further, this theory will become the simulation of the gaps.