Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Diamonds Key To Quantum Computing

Soulskill posted more than 6 years ago | from the supercomputer-in-the-rough dept.

Supercomputing 92

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Scientists P. Neumann, N. Mizuochi & co. have advanced quantum computing by finding a new method to get two-way and three-way, high quality quantum correlations that persist for hundreds or thousands of microseconds, even at room temperature. Their paper (subscription required) describes how they manipulated electrons from nitrogen vacancies in diamond using microwaves to entangle adjacent carbon-13 nuclei. Even better, this builds on previous results which indicate that diamonds with nitrogen impurities may be the key to creating useful quantum computing devices. The article provides a good description of what nitrogen vacancies are and why they prove useful."

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Did he (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23693479)

Did he spit on you? WHO? Mah dick!

Nobody Gives a Shit Anymore (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23695607)

Has anyone noticed that people are getting tired of all this quantum computing bullshit? Most of the posts below are just making fun of it all. QC is crap. Get over it. It is a big fucking lie that just refuses to go away as long as those fraudsters keep getting funding from us suckers, i.e., the public. I wish Slashdot would stop running stories about QC anymore. Only wild-eyed Star-Trek fanatics care and they don't count. Whoever promises to slash all funding for QC gets my vote in November. LOL.

Re:Nobody Gives a Shit Anymore (1)

drolli (522659) | more than 6 years ago | (#23698427)

O wow! how qualified! You know, i may be only 33 but i remember very well what people educated in the 60ties (e.g. Teachers, Engineers) told me when i was a child how transistors could NEVER replace tubes for certain applications (e.g. High power). Yea right. We see that now..... I work in the QC field, and we will not see any really working quantum computer doing any non-trivial task (i personally dont count dwaves "thermally assisted adiabatic QC" as one) the next 15 Years and after that it may take 30 Years or forever until it gets cheaper to buy QC instead of classical ones for the applications where QC are optimal. And even then it will not be in personal computers. But QC has the potential to replace very big computing systems (e.g. Blue Gene) which use a huge amoung of material and Energy for protein folding by a comparatatively decently sized QC which may take including the infrastructure (condensed matter QC: cooling, vacuum, shielding rooms, rf signal sources, staged amplifiers, crogenic electronics, optical/Atom/ion QC: cooling, lasers, optics, UHV equipment.) something well below 1MW, if you dont need big pumping Lasers more like a few kW, of power and less than 200 square meters (some of them will however need a tailored base of the building to avoid vibrations).

QC Is Crap Because It's Not Science (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23698727)

QC is based on a stupid conjecture (the Copenhagen interpretation of QM) that can never be observed. That is not science. It's voodoo crap, dead/alive cats and all that other jazz. Physicists don't even have a clue as to why quantum interactions are probabilistic and yet they feel qualified to conjecture that quantum states are superposed? Who you're fooling? Time travel believers and Star-Trek groupies maybe, but not anybody with more than two neurons between their ears. All the announcements we've been hearing about x qbits having been done in the lab are pure 100% bullshit. And you can take that to the bank.

In conclusion, DWave + David Deutsch = Snake oil salesmen. LOL.

Re:QC Is Crap Because It's Not Science (1)

drolli (522659) | more than 6 years ago | (#23700515)

> QC is based on a stupid conjecture (the Copenhagen interpretation of QM) that can never be observed
Excuse me. QC is NOT based on the Copenhagen interpretation. If you dont understand that in a real experiment you have to split the Copenhagen interpreation into two parts. 1) The measurement process, during which you create a 'split' in the space of possivle paths which separates your systems more and more, while introdusing the coupling a way that you replace one of the conjugate variables by your own (i.e. random) information. 2) The Philosophical idea 'if the path are so well separated, do i have many realities (if i 'amplify action' really stronly)?'. The first question is what matters to physicist, and belive me, it is understood quite well. The second one does not fascinate me. Until we understand simple things perfectly, i wont think about more complicated things....

Re:QC Is Crap Because It's Not Science (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23700871)

Excuse me. QC is NOT based on the Copenhagen interpretation.

Who you're fucking kidding? That is exactly what it is based on: superposition of quantum states, which what the Copenhagen interpretation is about. You're a typical fraudster, a jackass, a liar, a con artist, a crook. You should give David Deutsch a call. But then again, maybe you are Deutsch. LOL.

Re:QC Is Crap Because It's Not Science (1)

drolli (522659) | more than 6 years ago | (#23712221)

Please do me a favor and read the following: [] As it is said the Copenhagen interpretation is only an interpretation that we see QM systems in the way we see them. There are other approaches and as many people in the field and many who understood parts of Legget's work (and many other great people in the beginning of the 80s) I am not a fan of any theory requiring a wavefunction collapse or a concious observer role. And contrary to your assumptions superposition of Wavefunctions is NOT specific to the Copenhagen Interpretation, but a generic property of the QM we are using. And BTW i admire Deutsch, but not for the many-worlds interpretation (which does not qualify as a scientific theory because i can not make tests for it), but for his very solid work on infromation in QC.

Re:QC Is Crap Because It's Not Science (1)

ScottKin (34718) | more than 6 years ago | (#23705467)

Wow - do we now have a possible competitor to DWave's process trying to create FUD and deception as AC posts in a very thought-provoking thread?

What has the world come to?....oh, wait - what was I thinking; this is Slashdot, where AC posts are the most common (and sadly the most effective) method of generating thread-drift. It's true that most AC posts can be quite funny, so I'm not at the point of adjusting my threshold settings quite yet and I am aware of replying to a AC post is like arguing with someone on the


How nice.... (3, Interesting)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 6 years ago | (#23693495)

How nice now... The first quantum computer on the market will have to use diamonds.... So what will that mean? A $8 million price tag?

Re:How nice.... (5, Informative)

Majik Sheff (930627) | more than 6 years ago | (#23693523)

No, actually nitrogen impurities are the one thing keeping synthetic diamonds out of the jewelry market right now. Nitrogen turns diamonds a canary yellow, which can be considered desirable in fancy grades but is hardly desirable in the fiery rock category. Info here: []

Re:How nice.... (4, Informative)

Majik Sheff (930627) | more than 6 years ago | (#23693571)

Oops, better picture here: []

Re:How nice.... (1)

physman_wiu (933339) | more than 6 years ago | (#23694603)

Man that reads like a novel!

Re:How nice.... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23693971)

oh no, I can see this turning into the original Half Life... get your crowbars ready

Re:How nice.... (1)

ndogg (158021) | more than 6 years ago | (#23697221)

Really? D.NEA [] seems to be doing fairly well in that market, and they seem more than capable of making white diamonds, which requires almost complete purity.

And they're not the only ones in the market either.

Re:How nice.... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23693525)

Wow. You're an idiot.

Re:How nice.... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23693553)

Diddy already did it.

Re:How nice.... (0, Redundant)

Oktober Sunset (838224) | more than 6 years ago | (#23693713)

Did he?

Re:How nice.... (-1, Offtopic)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 6 years ago | (#23693629)

Clown shoes.

Re:How nice.... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23693887)

How nice now... The first quantum computer on the market will have to use diamonds.... So what will that mean? A $8 million price tag?
I would assume they would use man-made diamonds, there cheaper, purer and better formed than naturally occurring diamonds.

The only value in natural diamonds over man made diamonds is "i have something you can't afford" [snob value]

Lab Made Diamonds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23693533)

I gather now with the ability to create diamonds in the lab, the need for quantum computers might force more people to make them. I don't know if there will be a crash in the diamond market soon (there are ways to tell natural diamonds from lab made ones but it can be difficult) but it will be interesting to watch.

Re:Lab Made Diamonds (4, Informative)

hkmarks (1080097) | more than 6 years ago | (#23693945)

Natural diamonds are much more abundant than they'd have you believe. There's an artificial scarcity. Large, high quality diamonds are pretty rare, but there are plenty of small ones (enough to make tools out of them, and enough that diamond jewelery has next to no resale value.) The markup on new diamonds is huge and the supply chain is narrow.

Anyhow, isn't this whole thing the plot of the First Wave episode "The Apostles"? Except possibly without aliens? And probably fewer biker gangs?

Re:Lab Made Diamonds (5, Informative)

De Lemming (227104) | more than 6 years ago | (#23694363)

Some more info:

Re:Lab Made Diamonds (3, Funny)

Kjella (173770) | more than 6 years ago | (#23695579)

As much as it's a cartel and as much as logic says otherwise, I'd easily get a diamond ring if she was so inclined. Believe it or not, for many that is as much a part of the marriage ceremony as the white dress, wows and all that. "A diamond is forever" is quite frankly probably the single best marketing slogan in history. There's rubies and saphires and emeralds and many other gemstones, but it placed diamonds in a category of its own and at the same time it exploits your own insecurity. No matter how much you think this is marketing BS from de Beers, she might not. Unless you're really, really sure she won't think you're cheap or sending subliminal messages or whatnot I'd just get the ring and eat that feeling of having been suckered. There's a time and place to take your battles in a marriage, and I think de Beers know damn well they picked one of those where it's not.

Re:Lab Made Diamonds (5, Insightful)

UrinalPooper (1240522) | more than 6 years ago | (#23695787)

I just can't see spending the rest of my life with someone who is that susceptible to advertising. Even if she's physically attractive, that much dumb strikes me as being a worse kind of ugly.

Re:Lab Made Diamonds (1)

Taibhsear (1286214) | more than 6 years ago | (#23718105)

The only diamonds I'd give a girl would be on the edge of a cutting disc or drill bit. Chicks with powertools >> chicks with jewelry.

Re:Lab Made Diamonds (3, Funny)

colinrichardday (768814) | more than 6 years ago | (#23697261)

as much a part of the marriage ceremony as the white dress, wows and all that.

This is Slashdot.

Re:Lab Made Diamonds (1)

story645 (1278106) | more than 6 years ago | (#23698079)

Why do you think she'd want it so much if she really knew what it was all about? The media has made a pretty big deal about war diamonds in the past couple of years, and there are all sorts of new age movements centered around cleaner/greener/simpler lifestyles. *shrugs* Why not try to sell her on the idea that the wedding band is the only ring that really matters anyway?

Re:Lab Made Diamonds (1)

SomeoneGotMyNick (200685) | more than 6 years ago | (#23708817)

My Wife has one diamond ring (a 1/10 carat engagement ring) and a 2 ct. tw. tennis bracelet.

I wouldn't want to marry someone who's materialistic to the point that a 1/10 carat real diamond isn't enough to carry tradition. The diamond tennis bracelet was a gift purchased from a windfall of income.

She likes the nice look of a diamond or CZ. In fact, she'd prefer a 2 ct. CZ over a 1/4 ct. real diamond because it looks better for a much lower price.

De Beers may have started a nice tradition with diamonds, but the act of offering a ring in contemplation of marriage never required a real diamond. More women should think that way.

Don't Marry A Girl Who'd Check (1)

RexDevious (321791) | more than 6 years ago | (#23716091)

The girl I marry will either be:

A)A gorgeous airhead blonde who won't know that fake diamonds exist.
B)A classy girl who knows that buying real diamonds hurts lots of people and wouldn't want one.
C)Someone in between, who has me so whipped that I'd buy her a ring made out of my own spleen, and Microsoft Quality Assurance Licence (40 seat Enterprise version) to boot.

With any luck, constant programming will either ruin my eyesight to the point where option B becomes realistic, or result in the creation of a real holo-deck, making the whole issue mute.

Re:Lab Made Diamonds (1)

flajann (658201) | more than 6 years ago | (#23800335)

Well, for me, that "Diamonds are forever" crap is just that. Diamonds may be "forever", but marriages certainly are not. This divorce I am going through is the most challenging thing in my life, and I've had some pretty nasty challenges. She is trying to take me for every penny and rape me financially. And it all began 16 years ago witht he purchase of that diamond ring.

My cynicism aside, jewerly in general is woefully overrated, with HUGH markups. Kind of a shame, because you'd think they'd make great investment devices. Better to use them for cool electronic devices like quantum computing!

Best Friend (2, Insightful)

Sen.NullProcPntr (855073) | more than 6 years ago | (#23693573)

So now diamonds are a supercomputer's best friend?

Re:Best Friend (1)

Hasmanean (814562) | more than 6 years ago | (#23693635)

No, diamonds are a nerd's best friend.

Wait until DeBeers hears about this. (1)

lord_nimula (839676) | more than 6 years ago | (#23693581)

"Quantum diamonds are forever. Or are they?" --Lord Nimula

Diamonds are... (1)

TheMiddleRoad (1153113) | more than 6 years ago | (#23693743)

... for hundreds of thousands of microseconds.

Re:Diamonds are... (1)

Barryke (772876) | more than 6 years ago | (#23696215)

Actually what is said was "quantum correlations that persist for hundreds or thousands of microseconds," and i beleive someone forgot that thousands is actually less than hundreds, seen how the sentence was build in this context.

Re:Diamonds are... (1)

TheMiddleRoad (1153113) | more than 6 years ago | (#23696367)

I stand corrected. I should have said, "Diamonds are for hundreds or thousands of nubile women.

Re:Diamonds are... (1)

GigaplexNZ (1233886) | more than 6 years ago | (#23699165)

Thousands is more than hundreds. It is thousandths that is less than hundredths.

Obligatory SchrÃdinger's cat joke (2, Funny)

FilterMapReduce (1296509) | more than 6 years ago | (#23693765)

"Quantum diamonds are forever. Or are they?" --Lord Nimula
Quantum diamonds are both forever and temporary until their wave functions collapse.

Why diamonds? (0)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 6 years ago | (#23693585)

If the end result is to work with nitrogen, why are they using "diamonds"? I am sure there are better containers that can be worked on.

Re:Why diamonds? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23693673)

Oh you are sure are you?

Well someone alert the stupid fucking quantum computing scientists, some random kid on Slashdot is sure he has a better idea than they do. He is pretty sure there is more than likely the possibility that there might be some better way to do what they are doing, based on his reading of the summary written by someone who read what a reporter wrote after interviewing an intern. According to this kid, they can get to work right away his better idea.

People like you need to learn to shut the fuck up when grown folks are trying to work.

Re:Why diamonds? (4, Informative)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 6 years ago | (#23693783)

From TFA:

Carbon, the element which forms diamond, has four electrons available for bonding. To form diamond, the carbon atoms form a tetrahedral shape, where each carbon has four carbon neighbors, positioned evenly around the central atom. These atoms then share electrons, forming a very strong bond. If nitrogen is added during the formation of diamond, then some of the carbon positions will be taken by nitrogen. However, nitrogen has only three electrons available for bonding. Thus, every nitrogen atom is associated with a missing atom ^W electron in the tetrahedral. This imbalance leads to a very interesting situation, in which each vacancy is associated with a pair of electrons. In this case, the hardness of diamond is helpful because the atomic cores cannot move much, which helps preserve the quantum state of the electrons and nucleus. These robust quantum states are a necessary first step towards obtaining quantum computation.
Forehead whapping correction mine.

The whole notion isn't that different from doped silicon.

Re:Why diamonds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23694249)

Why the hell would he want to read one third of the article?

Short answer: The carbon-13s are the qubits, the nitrogens are the wires.

Re:Why diamonds? (4, Insightful)

arktemplar (1060050) | more than 6 years ago | (#23693797)

Well I'm not sure about that, but there is an interesting co-incidence here, silicon is in the 4th group, and so is diamond(carbon).

  electrical(electronics) computers -> silicon
Quantum computers -> Diamonds (carbon)

we need to add impurities to silicon to get it to work the way we want it, these guys are adding impurities to carbon to get it to act the way they want.

The resemblance may be superficial but it is there, nature is symmetric after all.

Re:Why diamonds? (1)

colinrichardday (768814) | more than 6 years ago | (#23697271)

Diamonds are formed by tetrahedrally bonded carbon atoms. Tetrahedrally bonded silicon atoms form quartz, which I do not believe is used much in computing equipment.

Re:Why diamonds? (1)

arktemplar (1060050) | more than 6 years ago | (#23699777)

Agreed, which is why I said superficial.

Re:Why diamonds? (1)

GigaplexNZ (1233886) | more than 6 years ago | (#23699229)

It isn't a coincidence. It is standard semiconductor physics. You can mix an element from the 3rd group with an element from the 5th group together to make semiconductors as well, such as GaAs. Different types of dopant (impurities) determine whether the semiconductor is n-type or p-type. In this case, the Nitrogen atoms have an extra valence electron than Carbon creating an n-type doped semiconductor. Diamond would probably make a decent semiconductor for conventional computers as well, but it is far more expensive than silicon.

Re:Why diamonds? (1)

arktemplar (1060050) | more than 6 years ago | (#23699765)

Like your Sibling post had said, Diamond is tetrahedrally bonded carbon, it doesn't have that extra electron that makes 'graphite' a good conductor. Diamond here is not being used as a semiconductor from what I have understood (why I feel it cannot be used as one, not being one after all - I have written later).

You are correct about mixing 3rd group with 5th group but diamond (Carbon) is 4th group. notice however that you can mix 4th group with 5th group to give you your n type, which I already said still requires that the 4th group be a semiconductor which diamond is not.

I know about dopants etc. having spent four years in Electronics, however not being material sciences or something I may still be not completely correct. But thanks for the info any ways. Nitrogen has an extra electron but is also extra stable N_2 being almost inert (please notice the _almost_ ). I think it's cause of the strength of the tripple P-P orbital bonds.

Diamond would not at all make a good semiconductor for conventional computers the simplest reason being - Diamond is not a semiconductor, the more complete answer involving lots of quantum physics and me having to explain fermi levels. Please do check this out on wikipedia or some place (I'd suggest a book but I guess you may not have access to books on semiconductors unless you are an EE or in material sciences or something).

Re:Why diamonds? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23704641)

So, the next generation of computers, which can perform EXPTIME computations in constant time, will use, er... My periodic chart doesn't go up that high (or down that far, depending...)

in need of tag (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23693607)

What, no diamondage or youngladysillustratedprimer tag?

A Professor of mine once said (1)

bperkins (12056) | more than 6 years ago | (#23693609)

Diamond computers.
Who cares if they work? People will buy them anyway.

A faster PET in sight? (1)

foobsr (693224) | more than 6 years ago | (#23693681)

From Wikipedia [] : "LifeGem is the world's first company offering to synthesize diamonds from the carbonized remains of people or pets."

Just another possibility for useful recycling.


Re:A faster PET in sight? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23693843)

Quantum diamonds are people!

Re:A faster PET in sight? (1)

jmp (84073) | more than 6 years ago | (#23698985)

Maybe too obscure, foobsr. Only us old farts remember what a PET [] is. Kids these days...

dilithium crystals (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23693687)

Maybe they should try with dilithium crystals.

Re:dilithium crystals (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23693965)

Maybe they should try with dilithium crystals.

LOL. This is funny. Too bad the humor will be wasted on a bunch of wild-eyed /. nerds who want to believe so much in the superstition known as quantum computing. Religion is a very powerful thing. LOL.

I know where to get those Diamonds (1)

Oktober Sunset (838224) | more than 6 years ago | (#23693741)

Ok, you go get all the high tech expedition stuff, and I'll teach the gorilla sign language, then lets go get em!

But do NOT pack any damned shaped charges!

Re:I know where to get those Diamonds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23693941)

And then I'll bastardize it into a terrible movie where you turn your communicaiton equipment into a deadly laser and chop gorillas in half.

We'll make millions!

Re:I know where to get those Diamonds (1)

Foo2rama (755806) | more than 6 years ago | (#23696253)

2nded and the first thing I thought when I saw this. Does this mean MC is right about other things???

Control crystals? (1)

DustoneGT (969310) | more than 6 years ago | (#23693781)

We need to figure out how to make our control crystals less susceptible to Zat'n'ktel fire and resistant to staff blasts before production.

Oh, and we might need to consider locking the compartments that hold our control crystals...

Diamonds are .. (1)

roguegramma (982660) | more than 6 years ago | (#23693819)

When diamonds are a nerds best friend.

carbon-13 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23693831)

The article didn't address the impact of using carbon with an unlucky number of whatever super tiny particles people in labcoats found in there. Considering the number of such carbons there would be in a commercial quantum computer, the effective radius of bad luck could be miles. Bring one of these computers home, and you could drown your whole neighborhood into misery. I reckon more research is needed.

So Now Diamonds Are the Answer to QC, eh? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23693917)

And what will it be next month? Moon dust?

Haysoos Martinez! Didn't D-Wave already announced that they have the final answer to QC and an actual working prototype? If D-Wave already has the answer, why do we need another one? What will it take to convince people that the entire QC things is one of the biggest fraud/snake-oil/crackpottery in the history of science? If you want to know the real truth about quantum computing, read these articles [] .

How much Gold... (1)

Tr0mBoNe- (708581) | more than 6 years ago | (#23693949)

is in my laptop? They could also make these artificially, putting in the precise concentration and distribution of nitrogen. All I heard was 'Quantum Computer' and 'persists for a real amount of time' and 'room temperature.'

Re: Their paper (subscription required) (5, Insightful)

presidenteloco (659168) | more than 6 years ago | (#23694025)

Science should be done with free, open sharing of the results, so that anyone, anywhere, can read the details and possibly come up with the next idea.

These subscription journals are holding back science.

The service of organizing peer-review is logically independent
of whether something is in a limited distribution paid, paper
journal. Sell google ads on the things if you must, dammit.

I know its a bit offtopic but it pisses me off royally.

Science is above all else about building shared knowledge.
Period. If you're putting your findings behind firewalls,
you are harming science.

Re: Their paper (subscription required) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23694191)

no opensource science isn't the cash cow that brings in R&D$ its all about the money always has been always will be.

Peer Review Is Like Incest (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23694349)

Science is above all else about building shared knowledge.

So quantum computing is science now? Has anybody ever observed superposed quantum states? I don't think so. QC is based on an unobserved interpretation of QM. It's based on a conjecture. It is not science as science is defined. And the fact that this crap is being published in peer-reviewed journals does not say much about the sanctity of peer review. When someone shows me a cat that is both alive and dead at the same time, I will believe in QC. Until then, it is just pure unmitigated hogwash and voodoo superstition.

Peer review is an incestuous mechanism whose purpose is to keep outsiders at bay. Science is thus immune to public criticism and ends up feeding on itself, producing monsters. Paul Feyerabend was right when he wrote in 'Against Method' that "the most stupid procedures and the most laughable results in their domain are surrounded with an aura of excellence. It is time to cut them down in size and give them a more modest position in society." Some so-called scientists should be ashamed of themselves.

Re: Their paper (subscription required) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23694863)

Makes me mad too, and despite a law (IIRC) that all results of govt funded research be free -- they sure aren't. I am an "amateur" researcher in alternative energy ( and found that to get access to back issues of Rev Sci Instruments you have to pay on the order of $60k AFTER DISCOUNTS to get such access to this almost purely government funded research. Of course, this comes in a bundled package with a lot of junk that would make any cable company green with envy. How much does it cost again to dupe a disk drive and mail it?

The AIP is against real science, only for maintaining a system for tenured jerkoffs sucking my tax dollars for their own benefit.

Write your congressman and complain! We paid for this once already, and it's not like the authors had any choice in a publish or perish world not to sign off on the dumb copyright contracts AIP enforces on their pubs.

It's as though the government has established a good ol boy system to keep results away from anyone who might use them to compete with the big guys who can buy this stuff with lunch money, and then donate the rest to campaigns. No enforcement will ever happen until enough of us complain, loudly, and not with some form letter from a PAC.

Re: Their paper (subscription required) (1)

HungSoLow (809760) | more than 6 years ago | (#23694891)

I agree with you entirely. But note that while you are a graduate student (and undergrad too in most cases) you have access to 99.99% of all Journals through your universities resources (library, and online in my case). This is how it is in Canada anyway. I find it strange in general that they charge money. It must be for the corporations that have no academic ties and can afford to fork over the money. Anyway, information wants to be free. As far as I'm concerned, education should be free from Grade 1 to Post-Doctorate. This includes textbooks and journal papers.

Re: Their paper (subscription required) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23695691)

I find it strange in general that they charge money. It must be for the corporations that have no academic ties and can afford to fork over the money.
Did you think that universities got all those academic journals for free? They have to pay for their subscriptions, same as anyone else.

Deciding on what subscriptions to pay for is a major part of research library management, and consumes a significant portion of the annual budget. Just because you get access included with your tuition/state funding/whatever doesn't mean it's cheap.

Anyway, it's not a no-cost proposition to run a journal, either. The fees aren't just a license to print money, although they may be higher than is completely justifiable. Still, a prestigious journal like Nature has a lot of overhead, relative to the readership. We're not talking about an issue of Newsweek that's going into every doctor's office in America. (It's one of the same reasons why textbooks cost more than, say, Harry Potter 7.)

You can make an argument that it can be done cheaper (or even for free), but it's harder to make the argument that the money is just wasted.

Re: Their paper (subscription required) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23699565)

It's worse than that, actually. I find it interesting that the research work described in most of these published papers are funded with the taxpayers money, then they also have to pay (indirectly) for the scientists to have those papers published in these peer-reviewed journals, then they have to pay yet again for the universities and institutes to have subscription access to (some of) these publications (so the scientists can read them) and, in the end, if the taxpayer is a layman/hobbyist with no free access to these publications through universities and such, he has to pay _yet_ again to read the results of the research he has paid for in the first place.

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"? I think not.

Re: Their paper (subscription required) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23695081)

The most annoying part is that Google indexes it all. It's what I call the "undead internet".

Try a specialised search for any science subject. Often the first two or three pages are links to zombie content, abstracts from journals, patent holding companies, JStor, Elsevier, IEEE etc that you cannot actually access the content. There are papers for sale, some for over $100.

Many of these leeches not only charge the reader, they charge the author to publish too.

But Google seems to either index _the _actual_content_ or has been SEO'd on every keyword very heavily - and yet you cannot actually read anything. This is very frustrating. As an ordinary internet user I feel like a second class citizen. Bugmenot is occasionally useful, but more often than not I simply find the exact paper I want to read but am fobidden from reading it.

Consequently I cite only sources that are actually available to the public and leave those who write for the gatekeepers of knowledge to obscurity.

Thankfully I am aware there is a growing backlash in all corners of the scientific community to boycott these journals and publish through publicly accessible sources. The problem is with certain orthodox institutions requiring publications in these archaic forms knowing they have sold out science. Hopefully they will also be swept aside in the years to come.

Re: Their paper (subscription required) (2, Informative)

mikael (484) | more than 6 years ago | (#23696007)

If you google search hard enough, you can usually find these papers free of charge from the originating university, either in the author's own website, or from a departmental archive.

I'm at an university, and even with a free Athens login from the campus library, our university still doesn't have a subscription to one or two of these companies. Basically, the subscription managers at the library will get a free trial or purchase a 1 years license with one of these companies. If enough papers are referenced, then the subscription is maintained, otherwise it is dropped.

Many research fields form their own cliques where they reference each others papers, and none from anybody else. If you are not in this clique, then it isn't worth taking out a subscription to that journal.

Fortunately, it is possible to get the jist of an unreadable paper by reading the descriptions from other papers.

Re: Their paper (subscription required) (1)

mikael (484) | more than 6 years ago | (#23695929)

That's the tricky part of running a research group - you want to publish your results in order get enough citations/references in other papers, in order to get further funding. But if you give away too much information, someone else can just set up a competing research department and take away your funding, so you end up having to start from scratch again.

So your survival tactic is to create a research group as large as possible to keep up the production of papers and the number of directions you can go in, or to investigate an area that nobody else has any interest in.

Having an expensive subscription for these research papers is one way to get the references, but reduce the risk of losing your funding.

Re: Their paper (subscription required) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23696885)

i totally agree with you in principle, but like most things in life, without a financial incentive, there wouldn't be any scientific journals to publish in. who would run the journals - your tax-dollars? the researchers who publish in them? maybe some sort of advertising system would work... how annoying, though. good ideas are most welcome.

Re: Their paper (subscription required) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23697355)

Some universities have policies that their professors should retain copyright if possible (and therefore post the papers on their own websites). If enough [big] universities push the issue, then hopefully the issue will get resolved.

Re: Their paper (subscription required) (1)

jnnnnn (1079877) | more than 6 years ago | (#23697423)

However, it costs (according to Physical Review) more than $1000 to publish an article. There is a lot of typesetting, they might pay reviewers, and they have to be reliable.
Everyone at a university gets free access to the articles anyway, through their library proxy.
I've just written an assignment on a Phys. Rev article, actually, and did you know that you can now pay ~$1300 and make an article public?

Re: Their paper (subscription required) (1)

exp(pi*sqrt(163)) (613870) | more than 6 years ago | (#23697643)

Well yeah, we'd all like stuff to be free. Why should science be treated so specially in this regard?

Re: Their paper (subscription required) (1)

rootooftheworld (1284968) | more than 6 years ago | (#23712355)

rock on!

Damned... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23694085)

Reading quickly, I misread: "finding a new method to get two-ways and three-ways" ...
The dissapointment is crushing

I for one... (2, Funny)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 6 years ago | (#23695007) looking forward to quantum computing. This way, my system files on Windows will both have a rootkit and not have a rootkit at the same time!

Re:I for one... (1)

Gazzonyx (982402) | more than 6 years ago | (#23697449) looking forward to quantum computing. This way, my system files on Windows will both have a rootkit and not have a rootkit at the same time!

Yeah, but you won't know which until you check...

Re:I for one... ...a question of perspective only. (1)

Ox0065 (1085977) | more than 6 years ago | (#23697695)

As with all things Quantum, its a model of what could be known.
My Mum has already achieved what you're after

Mom "but it didn't have a virus before you looked at it!"
I "did it take 30 mins to boot?"
Mom "yes, but it didn't have any virus"

Quantum computing on a budget? (1)

Duncan Blackthorne (1095849) | more than 6 years ago | (#23695205)

Could you please build my quantum computer with cubic zirconia instead? I'm kinda on a tight budget. :-/

I think I've read this one before... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23695337)

You know, it's only a matter of time before we run into the silverback gorillas with stone paddles in the Congo.

Yup... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23695947)

I already knew that diamonds are the key to getting a three-way.

Why are diamonds still costly? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23696541)

Ug, why are people thinking diamonds should be expensive anymore?

I know I'm posting this AC'ly, but hell I've seen diamond (brick sized) bricks produced out of that guy from the US Navy east coast plant.

What the fuck ever happened to him anyway - I kind of lost track. His techniques sure made artificial impurity free diamond easily enough, according to any test I ran anyway.

This was the major problem with the cartels - they were too damned pure according to various tests down to mass spectroscopy. He sure as hell seemed paranoid enough to avoid being 'dissapeared'.

Yellow stars, purple horseshoes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23696955)

Read it ages ago (long before the disappointing movie) but I seem to remember something about blue diamonds in the book "Congo" and the race to get them because they meant the fastest defense network or something like that? So that means Skynet will run on diamonds right?

Glam Rocks? (1)

Easy2RememberNick (179395) | more than 6 years ago | (#23697033)

...and the era of Glam Computing begins.

Coming in 2015... (1)

jcwayne (995747) | more than 6 years ago | (#23697047)

Petium XXIV - Diamond Edition
.005 karat x 1,024 cores = 5.12 total karats @ 1tflops/Kt = .5 LoC/ps memory throughput

Just one piece of the puzzle (1)

bh_doc (930270) | more than 6 years ago | (#23698303)

The last paragraph of TFA is notable:

Provided the qubit state can be transfered to photonic qubits, then it should be possible to scale the entanglement up so that it can involve more than a single nitrogen vacancy "having the entanglement lasts for milliseconds helps in this regard. Furthermore, qubits based on nitrogen vacancies aren't too hard to scale, since it is a solid-state material "no vacuum pumps required, thank you very much. Finally, the longevity of the entanglement should also enable the development of a refreshable quantum RAM.

There are a bunch of different ways to represent a qubit, the fundamental unit of quantum computation. They all have advantages and disadvantages. I myself work with photonic qubits. Using photons it's actually considerably easier to get and hold coherence (high-quality quantum correlations) for as long as you need it than in other representations. But one of the problems with photons* is that they always travel at the speed of light (well der), and while that's great for communication, it's not so good if you actually want to store quantum information somewhere. So finding a good way to keep coherence for a reasonable length of time for something stationary is useful work.

*The other problem with photons is that they are relatively difficult to get to interact with each other. There are only a few situations where there is any appreciable interaction between two photons.

Finally One For The Fellas (1)

benhattman (1258918) | more than 6 years ago | (#23698463)

If this had happened a few years ago when I got married, I would have had reason to demand a diamond as well. "But I want to do quantum calculations really really bad!"

Of course, 3 mos her salary vs 3 mos my salary would have bought me about as much diamond quantum computing as I got at the time anyways. Se la vi.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?