 |
| IBM Blue Gene/P Modules Cabinets for Parallel Growth |
QUANTUM COMPUTERS
LIMITS TO COMPUTATION
Landauers Limit
TOP 500 SUPER COMPUTERS [not any Quatum ones yet]
Human Brain, NEURONS and Artificial Inteligence
New TURING-THOMSON_TESTS 1,2,3,4 [Book 2: Another & Continued Book of Pure Logic]
http://www.top500.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landauer%27s_principle
http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/07/07/physicists.find.way.control.individual.bits.quantum.computers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limits_to_computation
http://hplusmagazine.com/2011/11/01/femtocomputing/
http://www.dwavesys.com/en/dw_homepage.html
http://psychology.about.com/od/biopsychology/f/neuron01.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Brain
http://www.couple3.com/main/2010/02/bluebrain-preview/
http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Blue_Brain_Project
[[["...
Physicists find way to control individual bits in quantum computers
Published: Tuesday, July 7, 2009 - 09:43 in Physics & Chemistry
Related images
(click to enlarge)
Optical lattices use lasers to separate rubidium atoms (red) for use as information "bits" in neutral-atom quantum processors -- prototype devices which designers are trying to develop into full-fledged quantum computers. NIST scientists have managed to isolate and control pairs of the rubidium atoms with polarized light, an advance that may bring quantum computing a step closer to reality.
NIST
Physicists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have overcome a hurdle in quantum computer development, having devised* a viable way to manipulate a single "bit" in a quantum processor without disturbing the information stored in its neighbors. The approach, which makes novel use of polarized light to create "effective" magnetic fields, could bring the long-sought computers a step closer to reality. A great challenge in creating a working quantum computer is maintaining control over the carriers of information, the "switches" in a quantum processor while isolating them from the environment. These quantum bits, or "qubits," have the uncanny ability to exist in both "on" and "off" positions simultaneously, giving quantum computers the power to solve problems conventional computers find intractable – such as breaking complex cryptographic codes.
One approach to quantum computer development aims to use a single isolated rubidium atom as a qubit. Each such rubidium atom can take on any of eight different energy states, so the design goal is to choose two of these energy states to represent the on and off positions. Ideally, these two states should be completely insensitive to stray magnetic fields that can destroy the qubit's ability to be simultaneously on and off, ruining calculations. However, choosing such "field-insensitive" states also makes the qubits less sensitive to those magnetic fields used intentionally to select and manipulate them. "It's a bit of a catch-22," says NIST's Nathan Lundblad. "The more sensitive to individual control you make the qubits, the more difficult it becomes to make them work properly."
To solve the problem of using magnetic fields to control the individual atoms while keeping stray fields at bay, the NIST team used two pairs of energy states within the same atom. Each pair is best suited to a different task: One pair is used as a "memory" qubit for storing information, while the second "working" pair comprises a qubit to be used for computation. While each pair of states is field- insensitive, transitions between the memory and working states are sensitive, and amenable to field control. When a memory qubit needs to perform a computation, a magnetic field can make it change hats. And it can do this without disturbing nearby memory qubits.
The NIST team demonstrated this approach in an array of atoms grouped into pairs, using the technique to address one member of each pair individually. Grouping the atoms into pairs, Lundblad says, allows the team to simplify the problem from selecting one qubit out of many to selecting one out of two which, as they show in their paper, can be done by creating an effective magnetic field, not with electric current as is ordinarily done, but with a beam of polarized light. The polarized-light technique, which the NIST team developed, can be extended to select specific qubits out of a large group, making it useful for addressing individual qubits in a quantum processor without affecting those nearby. "If a working quantum computer is ever to be built," Lundblad says, "these problems need to be addressed, and we think we've made a good case for how to do it." But, he adds, the long-term challenge to quantum computing remains: integrating all of the required ingredients into a single apparatus with many qubits.
Source: National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
..."]]]
[[["...
Limits to computation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
There are several physical and practical limits to the amount of computation or data storage that can be performed with a given amount of mass, volume, or energy:
The Bekenstein bound limits the amount of information that can be stored within a spherical volume to the entropy of a black hole with the same surface area.
The temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation gives a practical lower limit to the energy consumed to perform computation of approximately 4kT per state change, where T is the temperature of the background (about 3 kelvins), and k is the Boltzmann constant. While a device could be cooled to operate below this temperature, the energy expended by the cooling would offset the benefit of the lower operating temperature.
Bremermann's limit is the maximum computational speed of a self-contained system in the material universe, and is based on mass-energy versus quantum uncertainty constraints.
Margolus Levitin theorem sets a bound on the maximum computational speed per unit of energy: 6 × 1033 operations per second per joule
Landauer's principle is a physical principle pertaining to the lower theoretical limit of energy consumption of a computation.
Several methods have been proposed for producing computing devices or data storage devices that approach physical and practical limits:
A cold degenerate star could conceivably be used as a giant data storage device, by carefully perturbing it to various excited states, in the same manner as an atom or quantum well used for these purposes. Such a star would have to be artificially constructed, as no natural degenerate stars will cool to this temperature for an extremely long time. It is also possible that nucleons on the surface of neutron stars could form complex "molecules"[1] which some have suggested might be used for computing purposes,[2] creating a type of computronium based on femtotechnology which would be faster and denser than computronium based on nanotechnology.
It may be possible to use a black hole as a data storage and/or computing device, if a practical mechanism for extraction of contained information can be found. Such extraction may in principle be possible (Stephen Hawking's proposed resolution to the black hole information paradox). This would achieve storage density exactly equal to the Bekenstein Bound. Professor Seth Lloyd calculated the computational abilities of an "ultimate laptop" formed by compressing a kilogram of matter into a black hole of radius 1.485 × 10−27 meters, concluding that it would only last about 10−19 seconds before evaporating due to Hawking radiation, but that during this brief time it could compute at a rate of about 5 × 1050 operations per second, ultimately performing about 1032 operations on 1016 bits (~1 PB). Lloyd notes that "Interestingly, although this hypothetical computation is performed at ultra-high densities and speeds, the total number of bits available to be processed is not far from the number available to current computers operating in more familiar surroundings."[3]
..."]]]
[[["...
http://www.dwavesys.com/en/dw_homepage.html
D-Wave Systems Inc.
3033 Beta Avenue
Burnaby, British Columbia,
Canada
V5G-4M9
PRESS RELEASES
.Quantum Computing Firm D-Wave Systems Announces Milestone of 100 U.S. Patents Granted, Patent Portfolio also Rated #4 in Computing Systems by IEEE Spectrum in Latest Quality Assessment - June 20th, 2013
.Quantum Computing Firm D-Wave Systems Announces Publication of New Peer-Reviewed Paper in Nature Communications - May 22nd, 2013
.D-Wave TwoTM Quantum Computer Selected for New Quantum Artificial Intelligence Initiative, System to be Installed at NASA's Ames Research Center, and Operational in Q3 - May 16th, 2013
.Quantum Computing Firm D-Wave Systems Launches U.S. Business; Industry Veteran Bo Ewald Will Lead U.S. Business and Global Customer Operations - May 2nd, 2013
.D-Wave Systems, Inc., the World's First Commercial Quantum Computing Company, Secures $30 Million in a New Equity Round From Investors Including Bezos Expeditions and In-Q-Tel - October 4th, 2012
.Harvard Researchers Use D-Wave Quantum Computer to Fold Proteins - August 14th, 2012
Quantum Computing Pioneer D-Wave Inks Deal with Cloud Platform Leader PiCloud - June 28th, 2012
.Colin P. Williams, Noted Quantum Computing Expert, Author, Scientist and Lecturer Joins D-Wave Systems Inc. - June 14th, 2012
.D-Wave Defies World of Critics With 'First Quantum Cloud' - February 22nd, 2012
.CTO of D-Wave Dr. Geordie Rose named Canadian Innovator of the Year - November 21st, 2011
.Wall Street Journal: A Quantum Leap for a Big, Cold Computer - October 31st, 2011
.USC To Establish First Operational Quantum Computing System at an Academic Institution - October 28th, 2011
.D-Wave Systems sells its first Quantum Computing System to Lockheed Martin Corporation - May 25th, 2011
.Vancouver, Canada-based D-Wave Systems reports on quantum processor in Nature Magazine - May 12th, 2011
.Tech impact awards - May 2nd, 2011
..."]]]
[[["...
Neocortical column modelling
The initial goal of the project, completed in December 2006,[4] was the simulation of a rat neocortical column, which is considered by some researchers to be the smallest functional unit of the neocortex[5][6] (the part of the brain thought to be responsible for higher functions such as conscious thought). Such a column is about 2 mm tall, has a diameter of 0.5 mm and contains about 60,000 neurons in humans; rat neocortical columns are very similar in structure but contain only 10,000 neurons (and 108 synapses). Between 1995 and 2005, Markram mapped the types of neurons and their connections in such a column.
..."]]]
________________________________________
...To the Holy Grail of Computer/Machine and the Human Organic Brain...! How can the Brain of Organic Neurons hold Information and Think and have Consciousness ???
_ We have a limit in the NANO(10e-09m) and PICO(10e-12m) Computer Structures!
_ Quantum Computing tries to make possible to go smaller and use less energy, but is still in the making...! The venture into QUANTUM realms of Femtometer 10e-15m
_ Is DWAVE doing the QUANTUM breakthrough? See Press Releases!
_ The Human Brain size of NEURONS in a NeoCortical Column, is [A column of 2mm tall and 0.5mm diameter has around 60million neurons]. The Approximate size of these Human Neurons would be:
1/60000000 = 1.7e10-11 m <--> ~ 10e-12 m .
How can a Micro-Processor, QUANTUM Procesor, etc. have this HUMAN BRAIN and NEURONS size and be the same as us ?
_ New TURING-THOMSON_TESTS 1,2,3,4,5 .[George Frederick Thomson Broadhead 10Dec2013]
My Book 2 will explain the why and the complexity of each definition...!
But for all to use up your "grey matter" on it in expectancy, I will define each of the 5.
TURING TEST BASIC DEFINITION:
If a "Judge" cannot tell reliably the difference blind folded between the machine and the human, that the machine has passed the test!?
[a] _ New TURING-THOMSON_TEST 1:
We(Humans) can make a Super-Computer. A Super-Computer cannot make us(Humans). If a Super-Computer has this limitation, it is not the same or equal to a Human.
[b] _ New TURING-THOMSON_TEST 2:
We(Humans) cannot define sufficiently enough CONSCIOUSNESS, so how can we make a Super-Computer have a quasi-consciousness, if ever? Then the Computer fails the test.
[c] _ New TURING-THOMSON_TEST 3:
When a Super-Computer could be designed to be the size of a Human Brain, or a Computer with the size and capability of the Human brain. If not the Computer fails the test.
[d] _ New TURING-THOMSON_TEST 4:
A Super_computer could be as creative to invent things and write BOOKS and NOVELS without Human aid. If not the Computer fails the test.
[e] _ New TURING-THOMSON_TEST 5:
If a Human and Human Brain/Mind cannot make another THINKING Conscious Super-Computer similar and equal to a HUMAN Brain/MIND, then MOTHER NATURE did not make a HUMAN nor much less a Human BRAIN. The Computer Fails the Test. Mother NATURE and Evolution as such Fails the test also.
----------------------------------
...Have all a Happy December Celebrations and New Years 2014...!
I Cannot give any wishes to Christmas = CHRIST-MAS, as I do not believe in CHRIST nor the Catholic Mass, nor the Protestant Evangelical Jesus! Nor the Orthodox Jews Jehovah!
Enjoy life and pure logic, there is nothing else in logic to be happy about...!
.
.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment