Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 10:25:35 04/21/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 20, 2005 at 22:18:44, Robin Smith wrote: >On April 20, 2005 at 21:03:07, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On April 20, 2005 at 20:11:59, Robin Smith wrote: >> >>>On April 20, 2005 at 02:48:05, Dann Corbit wrote: >>> >>>>On April 20, 2005 at 01:35:32, Robin Smith wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 18, 2005 at 21:05:10, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>I doubt very much if Moore's law will quit in less than 100 years. >>>>> >>>>>You can't be serious. >>>> >>>>Serious as cancer. >>>> >>>>Not that we'll be using ICs in 100 years. They will look like relays would look >>>>today for a computing machine, I am sure. >>> >>>Moore's law has to do with the number of transistors (or whatever kind of switch >>>people use in the future), and that this number will grow exponentially, >>>doubling approximately every 24 months. In 100 years that would mean 50 >>>doublings, thus more than 4*10^23 transistors. This number is approaching the >>>number of atoms in the earth. >> >>6x10^23 is one mole. One gram of hydrogen atoms (2 grams of hydrogen gas), for >>instance. I see no reason we cannot go below the atom level to elementary >>particle. And elementary particles themselves could be an entire universe. > >OK, my calcualtion was off, but I still think 4*10^23 transistors is far, far >beyond how far transistor technology will ever be pushed. > >>How do you know if we can store 100 things in a single electron or not, or even >>1e1000 things? > >Moore's law is not about storing things, it is about transistors. If it were >only about storing things people would mention Moore's law with regard to hard >disks, which they don't. > >>>You are talking about one big computer. I >>>seriously doubt it. More likely in my mind is that in 100 years people will >>>figure out clever ways of making computers smarter and faster; bigger will not >>>be the answer. >>> >>>-Robin >> >>Perhaps our imaginations will discover new things. There is a good track record >>for that. > >I totally agree. In fact in 100 years I think people will probably figure out >ways to make Moore's law irrelevant. For example in 100 years people might >switch from "bits" to "qbits". At this point Moore's law becomes moot. Maybe >there will be some new exponential improvement law to take its place, but it >won't be Moore's law. There is an interesting article in April's CPU magazine on SETs (Single Electon Transistors). Apparently, many of the problems have already been worked out and TI has put forth a bunch of patents on them.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.