Anything new the sun?

Has anyone heard of any *new* technology  that is happening in real time? 
It seems like all of the *new* stuff stopped happening around 1993.
Now we are all into Retro.  Help!  
Also, the word *new* has been over used.  Many times, a company will call it's
product new when it's really taken from a company that died and wasn't too
successful in the '80's.  I am talking for real.  Also, are there any new
and different mags about the net that aren't Wired wanabes?  I am talking
about the Wired of now, wich *can* be cool if they try, but seem to be
following trends rather than truly trying to be at the cutting edge, dispite
wether or not the accountant is saying it's a good and safe place for
coverage.  Well, I am open for info... even if it kills me.  ;-)

12 responses total.

 Well, there is all that digital character / monster stuff going on.  
Even a Star Trek (Voyager) is using it now!

I think we are in a bit of a consolidation phase right now. Chipmakers 
are building on technology advances over the last few years to make 
things smaller, faster, cheaper, as always. Nothing has hit the market 
that is revolutionary from the point of view of hardware. 

Great stuff may be along soon. IBM announced a completely new 
fabrication scheme (CMOS 7S) using copper instead of conventional 
aluminum. That is pretty exciting (to hardware geeks, anyway). 

Maybe broadband cable inet connections represent a breakthrough. We'll 
be seeing more of that soon, but it is available now in some areas, and 
will knock your socks off if you are a net junkie.

I don't know about magazines.

"Just like the net only televised?"  Why am I not impressed?  I mean, yeah,
sure movement and that stuff would be pretty nifty.  But I don't like giving
up my choice on what leads to what that I got on the net.  Perhaps I am
finally becoming an "old fogie."  I guess I am sick and tired of being
force-fed information and most of all, ADVERTISING.  I keep worrying that the
next "innovation" will be tvsets without off-switches.

Uh, the neatest idea i have heard lately is whats called "quantum microdot
processing." It is in the hyper-experimental stages, and will not be showing
up in any Packard Bells for a *long* time.
The basic idea behind it is this: computing takes place at the atomic level
in specially engineered crystals. A particular atom in the lattice can have
positive or negative charge.
So far, what they have done has involved 1 dimensional crystal substrates with
lattices of 4 crystals. This also represents a second breaktrhough, as it
means that the computers would be operating in base-4 instead of base-2
(binary)... plus there is the obvious matter of space and speed...
I suppose the big question would be how would these things be mass
manufactured, given the need for extremely high precision. Will these things
be manufactured in space? *that* could hve some interesting implications:
space might finally be commercialized. I can imagine it now: The Intel
international Space Consortium :) <- that would be a hell of a tax shelter,
too <very big grin>
Well, actually, this *isn't* the neatest thing, but I am still mostly asleep
so it will have to do :)

Don't hold your breath on that kind of stuff.

Dont worry. I think that quantun dot computing will come into play right about
the same time as matter/energy transports :)
Speaking of which... did anyone notice the article in the NY Times about the
quantum mechanics experimenters at CERN, and their latest physics hack? They
successfully demonstrated that quanta of a particular particle can be
transfered to another particle, regardless of distance/time/speed. Of course
the first particle is destroyed... Sounds like a working premise for a
matter/energy transport if you ask me ;)

re #6 Regardless of distance/time/speed.  Does this mean energy can be
transmited faster than the speed of light?  I know under Bell's theorem
that particals can change spin in matched pairs instantly but this energy
transfer information is new to me.

This is related to Bells theorem. Except -- some crusty scientists at some
IBM funded research lab have devised a method to impose the quanta of ONE
particle onto another type of particle (which is an intersting breakthourhg,
as it could be used to make it so the quantum particles that exist in quantum
accelerators (atom smashers) can be detected more easily.
The energy itself is not being transmitted -- it is just one particular
characteristic of the energy (which is why it is not violating the law of
relativity).
The actual experiment used Bells principle, I believe. It involved splitting
one photon into two lesser energy photons (can someone explain WHY _that_ is
possible? It seems rediculous...) through a prism. That is about all the
cursory explanation given by AP newswires said.

Good Lord. i begin to think that Douglas Adams is the only dude who ever
got it right ;) To quote douglas adams: "It just seems too much like what
the crazy old man on the street corner would have said 'Ah, yes, I could
have told you that' had ..." we asked him 

The world is a crazy place. I give up on it. I am simply going to turn
into a sterotypical teenager now and go chase girls at briarwood. Oh shit.
They're closed. First logic ceases to exist, and now this!

BTW, I could be completely wrong about this. I have gotten my info from a
news-service report :P i am waiting to hear more about it in some science mag.
I would break down and visit the CERN website, but their computers don't seem
to like *my* computers :P

yeah, i read that quantum-state-transfer article. It even mentioned that the
transfer is FTL. It doesn't sound practical for anything, or likely to become
so, but you have to give it some time., Meanwhile, i admit that I don't
understand the physics, not that it is possible to get enough info to
understand from a news report like that.

This kind of topic might generate an informed discussion in the science
conference, though.

Practical use? Well, to elaborate on the pseudo-practical use that they
listed: the characteristics of one particle could be implanted on some other
particle of a different nature. The first particle might be of the variety
generated in atom-smashers, that only last for minute fractions of a
micro-second, and the second particle could be more, uh, normal (and hence
longer lasting). This would make (sub) atomic events in supercolliders *much*
easier to detect than they currently are.
Of course, at the present time, *super-colliders* don't present much practical
application either. They are there for the sole purpose of reassuring
atomic-physicists that they do in fact exist now, and will in fact exist
tomorrow :) They won't help anything, they don't help anything. It is possible
that the particle physics advances and revelations that would automatically
come with them would have some practical application, but sadly all
super-conductors are (directly or not) state funded, and if you have a
startling breakthrough that actually has economic ramifications, you could
concievably find that a giant legal battle would result to decide who gets
to exploit the results. The other possibility is that there would be
ramifications for weapons research (for instance, relating to the Strategic
Defense Initiative, aka Starwars) in particle weapons. 
Of course, any actual practical breakthroughs would be *completely* unrelated
to the actual stated purpose of *having* atom smashers, which is to figure
out what the essential nature of matter is.

As to understand or not understanding the physics of it: that makes sense.
It is quantum physics, a science invented because scientists can't explain
the universe with boring old newtonian physics. Don't worry, though. No-one
understands quantum physics. Quantum physicists don't.

One interesting explanation for FTL travel: more than 4 dimensions. Ever read
Flatland? Or "Hyperspace" by Michio Kaku? Interesting books... (they actuallu
bothy make it fairly easy to "visualise" multiple dimensions) Wormholes are
the only explanation for FTL (a worm-hole, of course, merely being a path
through other dimensions).

Suggestion: link this item to the science forum.

Good suggestion. Send mail to russ.

I didn't mean "understand" in the sense you took. Quantum physicists 
understand quantum mechanics (QCD) pretty well, even if it is not 
intuitive to folks whose intuition is based on macro-physics.

I merely meant that I had not taken the time to study the physics to 
understand it. I had only read the version in the popular press, which 
is notoriously lean on details. Mostly they were speculating on it as a 
way to obtain Star-Trek_like transporter beams.  in other words, they 
were dreaming.

Yeah, transporters are straight out the window, at least with our present
understanding of physics. Even transporting something the size of an amoeba
would be wildly improbable, and the impossibility increases with size, to the
point that by the time you reach the size of a human, it is so mathematically
improbable that this would succefully occur that it would be about impossible
for it to occur even if the same matter could be subjected to numurous repeat
transmit attempts, within the lifespan of the Universe. (Sort of a StarTrek
transporter Z-modem :).

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss