Topic: Michio Kaku: Tweaking Moore's Law and the Computers of the Post-Silicon Era (Read 1339 times)
April 14, 2012, 06:59:40 AM
I posted this mainly for those spreading FUD of how this type of technological breakthrough is either just around the corner or even already here...
April 14, 2012, 01:53:41 AM
A rather shallow analysis. He first asserts (he doesn't explain) how fundamental limits to further miniaturization of silicon devices are based in heat (the chip would melt itself) and leakage (due to quantum principles electrons won't stay localized in such small features - "can't say anymore if an electron is in the chip or outside the chip").
Then he moves on to mention molecular circuitry whereby current flows through a molecule instead of only through metals and silicon - but he never explains why the above two fundamental problems wouldn't apply to molecular circuits. It's not like organic molecules are more thermally stable than metals and silicon, or that they are bigger than patterned silicon features.
What a waste of time.
Then he moves on to mention molecular circuitry whereby current flows through a molecule instead of only through metals and silicon - but he never explains why the above two fundamental problems wouldn't apply to molecular circuits. It's not like organic molecules are more thermally stable than metals and silicon, or that they are bigger than patterned silicon features.
What a waste of time.
there is some research that shows that carbon nanotubes do not generate heat in or on the actual tube, but rather the area around it. I do not know how much that would affect the whole thing (there is still the problem of where does the heat go, what would stop it from going to the tube?). and mores law only states that the amount of transistors will double every 18 months. this has little to do with the "speed" of computation of complex problems.
You could likely argue that the current main stream system (x86) is old and inefficient. current mobile processors like the arm architecture in a way prove this. although i have no idea how well they scale up to high frequencies.
but really, we do not know how this will all pan out until they actually start to make some chips that do useful calculations reliably.
I agree - we will only know once it starts happening. I was just pointing out that many spectacular promises of molecular electronics have not bee thought through at all - for example, Kaku mentions heat and leakage as problems with current Si technology, then offers an alternative but fails to explain why those same problems wouldn't apply there. Also, let's face it: after hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of person-years thrown at it, there is no single instance of a useful, working, reliable molecular electronic device. If it were a valid concept, it would have already ended up in breakthroughs.
The next paradigm shift will have to come from something other than molecular electronics. Whatever it is, Bitcoin is safe - the algorithm for signing transactions can be upgraded, no?
April 14, 2012, 12:47:41 AM
A rather shallow analysis. He first asserts (he doesn't explain) how fundamental limits to further miniaturization of silicon devices are based in heat (the chip would melt itself) and leakage (due to quantum principles electrons won't stay localized in such small features - "can't say anymore if an electron is in the chip or outside the chip").
Then he moves on to mention molecular circuitry whereby current flows through a molecule instead of only through metals and silicon - but he never explains why the above two fundamental problems wouldn't apply to molecular circuits. It's not like organic molecules are more thermally stable than metals and silicon, or that they are bigger than patterned silicon features.
What a waste of time.
Then he moves on to mention molecular circuitry whereby current flows through a molecule instead of only through metals and silicon - but he never explains why the above two fundamental problems wouldn't apply to molecular circuits. It's not like organic molecules are more thermally stable than metals and silicon, or that they are bigger than patterned silicon features.
What a waste of time.
there is some research that shows that carbon nanotubes do not generate heat in or on the actual tube, but rather the area around it. I do not know how much that would affect the whole thing (there is still the problem of where does the heat go, what would stop it from going to the tube?). and mores law only states that the amount of transistors will double every 18 months. this has little to do with the "speed" of computation of complex problems.
You could likely argue that the current main stream system (x86) is old and inefficient. current mobile processors like the arm architecture in a way prove this. although i have no idea how well they scale up to high frequencies.
but really, we do not know how this will all pan out until they actually start to make some chips that do useful calculations reliably.
April 13, 2012, 10:35:21 PM
A rather shallow analysis. He first asserts (he doesn't explain) how fundamental limits to further miniaturization of silicon devices are based in heat (the chip would melt itself) and leakage (due to quantum principles electrons won't stay localized in such small features - "can't say anymore if an electron is in the chip or outside the chip").
Then he moves on to mention molecular circuitry whereby current flows through a molecule instead of only through metals and silicon - but he never explains why the above two fundamental problems wouldn't apply to molecular circuits. It's not like organic molecules are more thermally stable than metals and silicon, or that they are bigger than patterned silicon features.
What a waste of time.
Then he moves on to mention molecular circuitry whereby current flows through a molecule instead of only through metals and silicon - but he never explains why the above two fundamental problems wouldn't apply to molecular circuits. It's not like organic molecules are more thermally stable than metals and silicon, or that they are bigger than patterned silicon features.
What a waste of time.
April 13, 2012, 04:49:06 PM
What does this have to do with bitcoin?
The (non) possibility of cracking SHA2 due to increases in computing power and also increase in total network hash rate.
The first point is valid. SHA2 is likely secure for very long time likely a century or more unless some flaw is discovered which short cuts brute force attacks.
The second point isn't valid. The nominal hashing power of the network is irrelevant. Think of Moore's law as computer deflation. The cost of 1 MH/s will drop by ~ 50% every 18 months. It isn't hashes that secure the network but instead the cost (in hardware & energy) necessary to defeat the network.
When the cost per PH (as in hashes not hashes per second) is cut in half then so is network security. Say over next 3 years the cost per PH is 25% of today. Well then the if the network was 40 TH/s it wouldn't be any more secure than it is today with 10 TH/s.
Just like we need to adjust prices for inflation (i.e. using terms like $100 in 2010 dollars) we will need to adjust our expectation of security and adjust hashing charts by Moore's law deflation (i.e. you could show a chart adjusting all hashing power to "2012 hashes").
April 13, 2012, 04:42:58 PM
What does this have to do with bitcoin?
The (non) possibility of cracking SHA2 due to increases in computing power and also increase in total network hash rate.
April 13, 2012, 01:31:00 PM
What does this have to do with bitcoin?
April 13, 2012, 12:31:43 PM
I thought this newly posted video was quite interesting and also something a lot of people around here are concerned about so I wanted to share:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm6ScvNygUU
video details:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm6ScvNygUU
video details:
Quote
What's beyond silicon? There have been a number of proposals: protein computers, DNA computers, optical computers, quantum computers, molecular computers. Dr. Michio Kaku says "if I were to put money on the table I would say that in the next ten years as Moore's Law slows down, we will tweak it."
Jump to: