Quantum Computing:
May. 9th, 2006 07:20 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wolven7Found by CSO ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
wacko1138: "If Moore’s Law holds for another 10-15 years," says Dr. Raymond Laflamme, "we’ll have transistors the size of atoms."
My problem, here, is this idea: '"Computers never really do what we want them to do," he says. "It’s more of an approximation." But he believes that when we take computers to the quantum level, we just might be able to get those pesky machines to do exactly what we want them to do.'
Why do we think that a field with an Uncertainty Principle is going to be more predictable than traditional computing?
Thoughts?
{EDIT: 7.53pm: And Storage.}
wacko1138: "If Moore’s Law holds for another 10-15 years," says Dr. Raymond Laflamme, "we’ll have transistors the size of atoms."My problem, here, is this idea: '"Computers never really do what we want them to do," he says. "It’s more of an approximation." But he believes that when we take computers to the quantum level, we just might be able to get those pesky machines to do exactly what we want them to do.'
Why do we think that a field with an Uncertainty Principle is going to be more predictable than traditional computing?
Thoughts?
{EDIT: 7.53pm: And Storage.}
