View Full Version : Thoughts about nanotech?


Sidhe
Apr 20, 2008, 05:10 AM
Recently NASA proved that DNA uses quantum mechanics principals to better find and utilise the tiny molecules in the nucleus, making DNA the worlds first quantum computer, and beating the human race by at least 3 billion years. They also made the first DNA based algorythm, which used encoding to answer simple maths questions such as 1+5.

Medicine have produce drugs that can be applied using nanotechnology, that will not just effectively be absorbed by the skin but can also be used in delivering drugs intra cellularly.

The possibilities with this new tech are endless, and in fact if you look at the back of any science magazine about 10% of the jobs/PhD's are in nanotech research or application. Thoughts about the future of this break through science. Or is it all just hot air like cold fusion, that'll ultimately have little or no practical use?

Bear in mind without nanotech then your P4 would be a SX still and your quad core a DX.

Here's a general overview of nanotech and its possible uses.

http://www.zyvex.com/nano/

scy12
Apr 20, 2008, 10:24 AM
Nanotech is the most promising technology. We could potentially creating living organisms where Nanotech would play the role of Dna for example.

Perfection
Apr 20, 2008, 11:36 PM
Recently NASA proved that DNA uses quantum mechanics principals to better find and utilise the tiny molecules in the nucleus, making DNA the worlds first quantum computer, and beating the human race by at least 3 billion years. They also made the first DNA based algorythm, which used encoding to answer simple maths questions such as 1+5.That is not a quantum computer. The use of quantum mechanics in the hardware of a computer doesn't make it a quantum computer, if it did the ENIAC would have been a quantum computer. What makes something a quantum computer is the usage of superposition, coherance to perform operations themselves. This allows for mathematical calculations to performed that would be infeasible using a regular computer, not simply because a quantum computer is more powerful (that is it can perform more calculations in the same amount of time) but that it can solve problems with less calculations, and not just a few less, but in some cases exponentially less. There are math problems that with today's computing technology couldn't be done given many machines and years, but a single quantum computer with far less internal componants could do it in the blink of an eye..


In my mind, there are few potential technologies are more promising then a true quantum computer.

Sidhe
Apr 21, 2008, 02:31 AM
That is not a quantum computer. The use of quantum mechanics in the hardware of a computer doesn't make it a quantum computer, if it did the ENIAC would have been a quantum computer. What makes something a quantum computer is the usage of superposition, coherance to perform operations themselves. This allows for mathematical calculations to performed that would be infeasible using a regular computer, not simply because a quantum computer is more powerful (that is it can perform more calculations in the same amount of time) but that it can solve problems with less calculations, and not just a few less, but in some cases exponentially less. There are math problems that with today's computing technology couldn't be done given many machines and years, but a single quantum computer with far less internal componants could do it in the blink of an eye..


In my mind, there are few potential technologies are more promising then a true quantum computer.

Well that was the headline in new scientist. Anyway just to explain the chemicals would select building blocks on the basis of decoherence principals so they could more quickly arrange data, or encode proteins and DNA. This meant that the computer ran not only according to QM, but as a massive repository of human data, at the tiniest of scales it was governed not by classical mechanics, but worked primarily at the nano scale were many reactions take place with quantum mechanics as its governer for the ALU, instruction decoder, instruction fetcher, memory and registers. I hope that's a good enough explanation why NS ran the title. DNA: the first quantum computer? If not go moan at NASA for coining the phrase.

Perfection
Apr 21, 2008, 10:07 AM
Well that was the headline in new scientist. Anyway just to explain the chemicals would select building blocks on the basis of decoherence principals so they could more quickly arrange data, or encode proteins and DNA. This meant that the computer ran not only according to QM, but as a massive repository of human data, at the tiniest of scales it was governed not by classical mechanics, but worked primarily at the nano scale were many reactions take place with quantum mechanics as its governer for the ALU, instruction decoder, instruction fetcher, memory and registers. I hope that's a good enough explanation why NS ran the title. DNA: the first quantum computer? If not go moan at NASA for coining the phrase.The mark of a quantum computer is the ability to use qubits (or something similar like qutrits), which confer great compuational advantages by use of entanglement and other qauntum stuff.

Simply running according to QM doesn't matter, because every fully electronic computer uses quantum mechanics principles, these computers don't confer the computational avantages of entanglement and coherance.

As for the title, a google search for "DNA: the first quantum computer?" reveals nothing, so I believe you are mistaken there.

Sidhe
Apr 21, 2008, 10:45 AM
The mark of a quantum computer is the ability to use qubits (or something similar like qutrits), which confer great compuational advantages by use of entanglement and other qauntum stuff.

Simply running according to QM doesn't matter, because every fully electronic computer uses quantum mechanics principles, these computers don't confer the computational avantages of entanglement and coherance.

As for the title, a google search for "DNA: the first quantum computer?" reveals nothing, so I believe you are mistaken there.

Why are you talking to me, I know what a Quantum computer is and so does NASA, and yet they were still willing to use the word quantum and computer. I suggest if that's an issue for you you contact the biologists and physicists involved and tell them you have the copyright on the term quantum computer in any context and they can't use it. Now if we can get on with discussing nanotech not semantics.

Perfection
Apr 21, 2008, 11:46 AM
Why are you talking to me,First off, this is a forum. I'm not just talking to you, but every other forumer who happens to walk by.

I know what a Quantum computer isApparently you don't! A quantum computer is simply not a computer at molecular scales! It's somethng far more profound. Here's an article about what quantum computers are:
http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~westside/quantum-intro.html

and so does NASA, and yet they were still willing to use the word quantum and computer. I suggest if that's an issue for you you contact the biologists and physicists involved and tell them you have the copyright on the term quantum computer in any context and they can't use it.:lol: I don't own the term! I just know when it's being used improperly, and the way you used it was improper.

Now you say you got this from experts, but you haven't backed this up with actual links from experts saying that we've produced a DNA-based quantum computer. I can't simply trust your words as expert testimony because you have a tendency for crackpottery and misconceptions.

Now if we can get on with discussing nanotech not semantics.This isn't simply semantics! Quantum computers have very special mathematical properties and these mathematical properties have the potential to revolutionize computers. If experts are saying that this DNA based computer has these mathematical properties, then that's something that is really cool and I want to see it! However, I believe that in all likelyhood you were mistaken either by reading something incorrectly or reading something incorrect.

Sidhe
Apr 21, 2008, 11:48 AM
Ok you're boring me now, since your not talking to me I'll stop talking to you, because it appears I'm talking to myself anyway. Please not I didn't say it was a quantum computer NASA did, please make all future complaints to there web site, thanks.

Perfection
Apr 21, 2008, 11:50 AM
Where did NASA say this?

Sidhe
Apr 21, 2008, 11:54 AM
Where did NASA say this?

Why do you want a contact address where you can bore them too? it was a story in new scientist. No I don't have it and no I can't be arsed to look for it, do it ourself I've gone beyond being interested in what a quantum computer is since I'm more than well aware of what it is, although as you say someone may find it interesting to know what a QC is.

Now if you're done derailing the thread at least in terms of talking to me, I'll leave you to discuss the finer details with anyone who is interested. Anon.

Perfection
Apr 21, 2008, 11:57 AM
Well, I guess I'll just have to continue in my belief that the computer you describe is not a quantum computer then and that you are mistaken as to what a quantum computer really is.

Sidhe
Apr 21, 2008, 12:00 PM
Well, I guess I'll just have to continue in my belief that the computer you describe is not a quantum computer then and that you are mistaken as to what a quantum computer really is.

:lol:

I didn't say that's what I thought one was, I said that's what an article said? and consider yourself ignored for another 48 hours anyway, I can't be arsed with you. If this gets me a warning point for trolling, so be it.

brennan
Apr 21, 2008, 12:00 PM
Sidhe: for the love of brain cells, stop reading the New Scientist! They say all kinds of garbage.

Just saw this, from a few days back:

Researchers have built the world's smallest transistor - one atom thick and 10 atoms wide
...from the Beeb (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7352464.stm).

Perfection
Apr 21, 2008, 12:04 PM
I said that's what an article said?So you don't believe what they said? Doesn't seem like it from the OP!

and consider yourself ignored for another 48 hours anyway, I can't be arsed with you.Hey, I have no problem with people ignoring me. In fact, I have a link in my sig for added convenience.

brennan
Apr 21, 2008, 12:05 PM
:old: Stop bickering. Go fight in OT if you must, this is the civilised forum. :whipped:

Perfection
Apr 21, 2008, 12:11 PM
Well brennan, quantum computing is so cool that I'd like it if Sidhe didn't give people misconceptions about it.

Here's the introductory article I posted about it earlier, it's worth a read! Quantum Computing is very exciting.
http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~westside/quantum-intro.html

Sidhe
Apr 21, 2008, 12:11 PM
Sidhe: for the love of brain cells, stop reading the New Scientist! They say all kinds of garbage.

Just saw this, from a few days back:


...from the Beeb (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7352464.stm).

I know I wouldn't mind if it was me he wrote the article but I didn't so I don't see why I should have to substantiate it, and unfortunately I don't get access to physics papers except on arxiv for another 9 months. And I can't afford another subscription, but since NS sources can be easily checked you can always put any article into context. That's why I like it and I'm not an expert on every/any science unfortunately. ;)

Plus of course the letters page completely destroy the articles sometimes which is funny. :)

brennan
Apr 21, 2008, 12:12 PM
Hello? Degree in Physics, Electronics and Computing... :p

Sidhe
Apr 21, 2008, 12:13 PM
Hello? Degree in Physics, Electronics and Computing... :p

Good for you. :D

Perfection
Apr 21, 2008, 12:15 PM
Hello? Degree in Physics, Electronics and Computing... :pThat directed toward me?

brennan
Apr 21, 2008, 12:17 PM
Yeah, why, you wanna fight about it? :mad:

brennan
Apr 21, 2008, 12:18 PM
Sorry, bored. :)

Perfection
Apr 21, 2008, 12:18 PM
Yeah, why, you wanna fight about it? :mad:

Nah, I'm just kinda wondering why you said it.

brennan
Apr 21, 2008, 12:20 PM
Because you offered me a link on quantum computing. :)

Perfection
Apr 21, 2008, 12:26 PM
They tought you that stuff in class?

Where did you get experience with it?

brennan
Apr 21, 2008, 12:31 PM
Ah, I see your point. No we didn't study Quantum Computing, it was background reading if you like, the sort of thing that gets brought up in the IOP journal every now and then, and it's my area of interest.

Perfection
Apr 21, 2008, 12:44 PM
You work with Quantum Computing?

What do you do?

brennan
Apr 21, 2008, 02:41 PM
You are determined to misunderstand me huh?

I'd already taken a course in Philosophy before I did my degree, and was good with all the electronics stuff, so speculation and work on things like Quantum computing and SQUIDs tends to catch my attention for a couple of reasons.

I don't work in the field at all.

Sidhe
Apr 21, 2008, 03:09 PM
I think he's got ants in his pants. Can we get to talking about issues in nanotech without the anal what is Earth nanotech. Or should I ask the mods to close this thread because it's way too controversial for school? Your move Px.

Perfection
Apr 21, 2008, 04:39 PM
You are determined to misunderstand me huh?No, just confused here. 'twas why I used question marks.

I'd already taken a course in Philosophy before I did my degree, and was good with all the electronics stuff, so speculation and work on things like Quantum computing and SQUIDs tends to catch my attention for a couple of reasons.

I don't work in the field at all.Okay, I getcha now!