Printable View
I'm curious as to why a bunch of you think it's fake. The technology has been around for years. Does everyone think that atom chips are fake just because they don't understand the technology?
EDIT: Don't get me wrong, the site looks fake and cheesy. But the technology behind it is legit.
-MrD
I'm 50/50 right now mostley beacuse I know bit about the solid state technology (use to be a nanofab tech) and I know of some research groups which have done something similar in terms of soild state memory.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDigital
However, I'm a bit skeptical beacuse no one else seems to be talking about it or discussing it. That says to me that either this info is really really new, or that its mostly likely vaporware.
As of now, I'm thinking that atomchip might be a legit start-up company which is looking to get more catpial inorder to really enter the comsumer market.
I'm sure it would've hit the big news agency pages as well. If it hasn't, means no one trusts this, means it's fake!
When was the last time a minor scientific discovery that impacts next to no one (without software support) was reported on by a big news agency? Besides, isn't ZDNet a big news agency (for technology at least)?
How about Europhysics News? http://www.europhysicsnews.com/full/.../article3.html
Note the final paragraph:
That article was written in 2002. Isn't it plausible that by 2005 someone has figured out how to do the quantum logic gates?Quote:
In the near future we can expect that a wide range of atom-optical elements will be integrated onto a single chip. An important next step will be to integrate optical fibres and microcavities into atom chips [11]. These will make it possible to prepare and detect individual atoms in specific quantum states so that they can form the basis of quantum logic gates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soul Assassin
The question isn't whether they can do it, but rathe can they do it at a large production level.
I know from personal experiance that many resreach groups are out there with working models. The problems is that the models are "lab prototypes" which took millions of dollars and a great deal of time and care to create.
Form the webpage, it looks like Atmochip is inplying that are close to being production ready. Granted many start-ups have made similiar claims only to fail in teh end due to lack of funds, legal problems, under estimating deadlines, and etc.
If a company has indeed figured out how to 1. get this done and 2. get something to market, I am sure that their budget would have more in it than that half assed website above.
Sure, it may be possible but it is basically just leaving the realm of theory and creeping into the world of reality - even then, it will be quite a long time before it makes it into homes and businesses. To believe this project would be to make a large leap of faith and to actually believe that a no name company has done what other large research labs have been striving for.
As far as I know, the company isn't a 'no name'. It's just the for-profit entity created by the university or the researchers to market the product. Similar to how Cisco was created out of Stanford labs. A good number of the more successful tech/science companies start from the research labs at some university.
There are probably 1:1000 odds that the product will come to market but that still doesn't make it fake. It simply makes it either vaporware or hype.
It's real. I read the german pages, but I can't really translate them since I don't know the technology behind it.
I don't care about the CPU too much, but 2tb of storage in the size of a CF card gives me an erection. Not really, but almost.
It's fake. Let me list a lot of reasons:
1. The "Terabyte memory cards" are stickers on compact flash cards put into compact flash to IDE converters. You can read the IDEX1 on the silkscreen still.
2. Pentium M has no 2-way, let alone 4-way chipsets available.
3. Their "6.8 GHz Quantum-Optical CPU" is nonsensical - why do they have lenses? Any chip trying to process light efficiently would be using a bonded fiber taper. Lenses are hugely inefficient. Why are the lenses pointing at the inside of the package? Not going to be recieving much there... Next, why are optics involved at all? Most current quantum computing schemes use quantum teleportation to move information - there is no bus. Next, 6.8 GHz - quantum computing actually occurs much SLOWER than classic computing, you just need many fewer steps to get to the same goal. So how are they going way faster? Then again, why is there a clock at all since there is no clock in quantum logic? Here's a few articles on quantum computing from a reliable source.
http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/s...leID=159901551
http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/s...cleID=18309007
http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/s...cleID=60404988
http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/s...cleID=20000142
4. There is no way to address 1 TB of RAM in XP.
5. Does the quantum-optical processor somehow run the x86 instruction set?
What exactly are you talking about when you reference "atom chips"? Quantum logic gates? Nanoscale storage devices? Neither of those have anything to do with the crap on that site.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDigital
You might be right about the laptop. I would expect first models of such a computer to be pretty big and run UNIX.
However, the technology that they use exists. One of the pages (without the laptop on it) is from Uni Heidelberg, a relatively respected German university. I doubt they would put fake material on their site.
Anyone who wants to actually find out on the technology can read this:
http://acqp.physi.uni-heidelberg.de/...view_paper.pdf
anyone who thinks this is real has absolutely no understanding of quatum physics.
In any given quantum field there is an inherent decay from the original quantum state into an incoherent state as it interacts with the state of the environment. These interactions between the environment and qubits are unavoidable, and induce a breakdown of information and thus computational errors.
This stems from the problem of particle spin being affected by the environment in one of three linearly independant ways. The spin may flip over, the phase of the spin may change sign, or both a spin flip and a phase change may occur. Therefore, for a system of n qubits, the total number of possible independent ways for errors to afflict at most t qubits is given by the equation: E(n,t) = Summation(j=d(3^j)C(n,j)) within a Hilbert space that is orthagonal to the Hilbert space of the original state. Therefore, for any k number of qubits, the inequality 2^k * E(n,t) < 2^n MUST be satisfied.
Given rate R = k/n, the inequality can be expressed as a bound on R such that R = k/n < 1 -H(p) -plog2(3) where here H(p)= - p log2p - ( 1 - p ) log2( 1 - p ) is the entropy function and p=t/n is the error rate.
So, until you can prove to me that this inequality is satisified any quantum computing design will be severely errored.
i sight the following sources for reference:
a. Q. A. Turchette, C. J. Hood, W. Lange, H. Mabuchi, and H. J. Kimble, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 4710(1995).
b. S. Lloyd, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 346(1995).
c. S. Lloyd, "Quantum Analog Computers," submitted to Science (1996).
d. J. Preskill, "Can Quantum Errors Be Corrected?," unpublished notes (November, 1994).
e. A. Despain et al., JASON Report JSR-95-115, Mitre Corporation, McLean, VA.
f. D. Beckman, A. Chari, S. Devabhaktuni, and J. Preskill, Caltech Preprint CALT-68-2021 (1995).
g. H. Mabuchi and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett.(1996).
h. N. J. Cerf and C. Adami, "Negative Entropy and Information in Quantum Mechanics," Caltech Preprint (1995), quant-phy/9512022.
... and on a more fundamental level:
1. R. P. Feynman, Intl. J. Theoretical Physics 21, 467 (1982); D. Deutsch, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A400, 97 (1985); P. Benioff, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 1581(1982).
2. P. W. Shor, in 35th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science: Proceedings, ed. S. Goldwasser, IEEE Computer Society Press (1994).
3. C. Monroe, D. M. Meekhof, B. E. King, W. M. Itano, and D. J. Wineland, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 4714(1995).
4. T. Pellizzari, S. A. Gardiner, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, "Decoherence, Continuous Observation, and Quantum Computing: A Cavity QED Model," Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 3788 (1995).
5. J. I. Cirac and P. Zoller, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 4091 (1995).
6. A. Barenco, D. Deutsch, A. Ekert, and R. Jozsa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 4083 (1995); T. Sleator and H. Weinfurter, ibid., 4087; J. I. Cirac and P. Zoller, ibid., 4091.
7. C. W. Gardiner, Phys. Rev. Lett 70, 2269 (1993); H. J. Carmichael, ibid., 2273.
8. A. S. Parkins, P. Marte, P. Zoller, O. Carnal, and H. J. Kimble, Phys. Rev. A 51, 1578 (1995).
9. Z. Hu and H. J. Kimble, Optics Lett. 19,1888 (1994).
10. R. Hughes, et. al., "Quantum Computation and Factoring," Presentation from Los Alamos National Laboratory, (1995).
11. R. Landauer, "Is quantum mechanically coherent computation useful?," in Proceedings of the Drexel-4 Symposium on Quantum Nonintegrability -- Quantum-Classical Correspondence, edited by D. H. Feng and B.-L. Hu (International Press, to appear).
12. P. W. Shor, Phys. Rev. A 52, 2493 (1995); A. R. Calderbank and P. W. Shor, "Good quantum error-correcting codes exist," (1995, unpublished), quant-ph/9512032; A. Steane, "Multiple particle interference and quantum error correction," (1995, unpublished), quant-ph/9601029.
13. For an elementary review see C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, and A. K. Ekert, Sci. Am. Oct. 1992, 50.
14. C. H. Bennett et al., "Purification of noisy entanglement and faithful teleportation via noisy channels," (1995, unpublished); D. Deutsch et al., "Entanglement-based quantum cryptography is unconditionally secure," (1995, unpublished).
15. V. Vedral, A. Barenco, and A. Ekert, "Quantum networks for elementary arithmetic operations," Oxford preprint (1995), quantu-ph/9511018.
16. C. Miquel, J. P. Paz, R. Perazzo, "Factoring in a dissipative quantum computer," Technical report 9601021 from Los Alamos National Laboratory repository, (1996).
17. C. H. Bennett et al., "Purification of noisy entanglement and faithful teleportation via noisy channels," (1995, unpublished).
18. D. Deutsch et al., "Entanglement-based quantum cryptography is unconditionally secure," (1995, unpublished).
19. H.-K. Lo and H. F. Chau, "Quantum cryptography in noisy channels," (1995, unpublished), quant-ph/9511025.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eshbach
Is this how the guys at atomchip are doing it or is this just your own idea of how it works? Espically if you know nothing about the "enviorment" or the "interactions". I'm not doubting your claim just wondering since I know very little about quantuam mechanics
<----- Embedded systems and digitial/analog design guy
Why are we even talking about this? Sometimes I think about making up fake sites just to drive traffic. Seriously. That sites is retarded. You can slap a bunch o crap onto a website, and even print up stickers to put on a Compact Flash card, but that doesn't mean anything.
i should have quoted.Quote:
Originally Posted by taggart6
my post is in regard to the mention of quantum logic gates.
a photon is a photon is a photon.
in other words, anythin that relies on three-state bits will have the same decoherence.