Beta

×

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!

Scientists Find Flaw in Quantum Dot Construction

Zonk posted more than 9 years ago | from the you-changed-the-outcome-by-measuring-it! dept.

Science 180

ThePolkapunk writes "Scientists have been having problems in predicting the behavior of Quantum Dots, which are considered to be the most likely material to be used to build nanocomputers. Physorg is reporting that physicists at Ohio University believe they've found the problem, and it's with a flaw in the construction of quantum dots. If their theory pans out, "It's one more step towards the holy grail of finding a better quantum bit, which hopefully will lead to a quantum computer."" We first mentioned this about six years ago.

cancel ×

180 comments

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

DUPE!!! (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11661652)

You reported this six years ag... oh, they pointed it out...

It's STILL a dupe, dangit!

Re:DUPE!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11661704)

Dangit man you stole my joke, and my FP!

And made my Dupe comment a Duplicate FP!

TROLL THIS JOURNAL!!!! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11661807)

This twit [slashdot.org] deserves a good trolling!

Dupe (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11661657)

"We first mentioned this about six years ago."

Why won't those editors learn to read /.?

UO? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11661688)

There is no "University of Ohio"... It's "Ohio University"...

Re:UO? (2, Funny)

ThatsNotFunny (775189) | more than 9 years ago | (#11662066)

Sounds like they OU an apology... ;)

Re:UO? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11662089)

Not in this universe, but in a parallel universe there is.

Re:UO? (2, Funny)

B3ryllium (571199) | more than 9 years ago | (#11662205)

Would that be in Universe A or Universe 1?

In other news: (1, Funny)

gik (256327) | more than 9 years ago | (#11661692)

After painstaking years of testing and research, Scientists have found the source of the problem with malfunctioning Firestone tires: THEY WEREN'T BUILT PROPERLY.

Film at eleven. :)

Re:In other news: (1)

iggymanz (596061) | more than 9 years ago | (#11662027)

said a Firestone engineer: "we found that using incorrectly designed quantum dots in the valve stems caused leaking when the tire pressure was not being directly observed."

In other news:-Quantum Outsourcing. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11662092)

"After painstaking years of testing and research, Scientists have found the source of the problem with malfunctioning Firestone tires: THEY WEREN'T BUILT PROPERLY."

See what happens when you outsource?

I guess this seems as good a place as anywhere (4, Interesting)

mcc (14761) | more than 9 years ago | (#11661701)

to ask this...

The guy who wrote "the wellstone" is convinced that quantum dots can also be used to create programmable matter [wilmccarthy.com] , something he came up with in one of his science fiction books.

I am just curious. Is this (programmable matter via quantum wells/dots) something that actual work is being done on anywhere, or that actual signs of progress can be seen in, or that Mr. McCarthy has the actual capacity to encourage actual science work to be done on? Or is this just a lone science fiction author running around trying to convince people to take him seriously?

Re:I guess this seems as good a place as anywhere (1)

bird603568 (808629) | more than 9 years ago | (#11661719)

Wouldn't this be kind of dangerous? Couldn't they make a "virus" that self replacated and use it to kill people, destroy stuff, so on and so forth.

Re:I guess this seems as good a place as anywhere (1)

xstonedogx (814876) | more than 9 years ago | (#11661757)

Since "virus" is in quotes, I assume you don't mean an actual virus, but some kind of quantum device.

Have you ever heard of Grey Goo [wikipedia.org] ?

I think it's an interesting idea, but I doubt it's possible.

Re:I guess this seems as good a place as anywhere (4, Insightful)

wass (72082) | more than 9 years ago | (#11662159)

Is this (programmable matter via quantum wells/dots) something that actual work is being done on anywhere, or that actual signs of progress can be seen in, or that Mr. McCarthy has the actual capacity to encourage actual science work to be done on?

First a note - All of my experience with quantum dots is at cryogenic temperatures, eg 4.2K and below, so I'm not aware of the behavior of systems at higher temperatures.

It sounds like this author is making very generalized hand-waving explanations about these fairly complex systems. And is vague enough so that if any effect is discovered, he'll claim that he "discovered" it first. But if he did claim that, it would be somewhat disingenuous because it's very difficult to predict what kind of coherent long-range many-body "emergent" patterns would manifest themselves. Ie, the low-level physics is hard, the fabrication is hard, determining large-scale effects is hard, etc. Heck, even describing a simple helium-atom is hard enough (the quantum-mechanical 3-body problem), with three interacting coulomb forces to work with in addition to the nuclear potential. So it sounds like he's handwaving, but in an attempt to claim prediction of any future discovery based on quantum-dots.

On a side note, though, all matter is already programmable by default. Phase transitions, for example, will happen at specific temperatures, or magnetic fields, etc, such that the macroscopic behavior of the material can be 'programmed' by pushing through the phase transition.

Quanta (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11661703)

I built my caravan from nanoscale quantum dots.
It got rusty really quickly, and the seals on the doors leak.
I would recommend other people avoid using them for building things.

gates quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11661711)

This reminds me of a quote:

"Revolutions in technology are limited only by the vision of creativity and imagination"

- Bill Gates on Quantum Computing

Do we need quantum bits? (1, Insightful)

ggambett (611421) | more than 9 years ago | (#11661713)

Disclaimer : I know next to nothing about quantum computing.

However, I wonder if we really need quantum bits. Sure, we probably can reproduce the same kind of circuitry that we have now with quantum gates and whatnot, but I fear that would be missing the point, or rather grossly wasting, the capabilities opened by quantum mechanics, by forcing these into our current paradigm. That is, using quantum stuff as a new mechanics for our current paradigm, instead of coming up with a new paradigm that actually utilizes quantum properties fully.

In a word, this looks like evolution - will this cause a revolution?

As I said, I know almost nothing about this, so excuse me if my post didn't make sense at all.

Re:Do we need quantum bits? (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 9 years ago | (#11661718)

In a word, this looks like evolution - will this cause a revolution?

Revolution is punctuated evolution. Just because a given development isn't punctuation doesn't mean that it doesn't bring us one step closer to revolution.

Re:Do we need quantum bits? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11661726)

You really outta take another look at the Scientific Method before making such wild claims.

Re:Do we need quantum bits? (1)

ggambett (611421) | more than 9 years ago | (#11661777)

I said I knew very little about quantum mechanics, and I didn't make any claim - I asked.

Re:Do we need quantum bits? (2, Insightful)

Umbral Blot (737704) | more than 9 years ago | (#11661762)

Quantum computers have the capability to break most encryption schemes. This would definitely be a revolution.

Re:Do we need quantum bits? (0)

Twinkle (84777) | more than 9 years ago | (#11661821)

Only the asymmetric ones. Blowfish, AES, etc will still be fine.

A quantum computer will be much faster at factoring than a normal computer, so RSA, etc are doomed.

I'm not sure if a quantum computer will be better at elliptical curve stuff, so maybe ElGamal is ok?

Re:Do we need quantum bits? (1)

ggambett (611421) | more than 9 years ago | (#11661826)

But that's by brute forcing. Surely having many orders of magnitude more processing power will change some things (such as cryptography, as you say), but it's still "more of the same".

Re:Do we need quantum bits? (1)

necama (10131) | more than 9 years ago | (#11661901)

The quantum computing method of breaking public key encryption isn't based on brute force, like the classical methods are. Shor's algorithm is in P, not NP.

Re:Do we need quantum bits? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11662163)

Shor's algorithm is in P, not NP
Yikes. First of all, P is contained in NP. In other words, it's impossible for something to be in P but not in NP.

Secondly, Shor's algorithm is NOT in P. P is the set of languages decided in polynomial time by a deterministic Turing machine. Shor's algorithm runs in polynomial time, but it is NOT in P.

Re:Do we need quantum bits? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11661872)

Please explain how a quantum computers "breaks" AES. Please.

Re:Do we need quantum bits? (1)

VValdo (10446) | more than 9 years ago | (#11662155)

Please explain how a quantum computers "breaks" AES. Please

Caveat: I'm not an expert, and this is just my understanding.

Basically, to crack AES using a brute force method, you have to try every potential key in the keyspace in a linear fashion-- ie, you start at the beginning and pile down the list. ("Not this one. Not this one either. Not this one.." etc.) Of course you can distribute [wikipedia.org] the effort across many computers and each does a portion, but every possible solution must be independently tested.

Quantum computing, again as best as I understand it-- and I know someone will correct me if I'm wrong here-- works totally differently than a normal computer. Rather than stepping through an instruction serially, many potential outcomes can be evaluated simultaneously, in parallel. How is this possible? Well, a "bit" in regular computing may hold the result of one attempt to find an answer (0 or 1), but a "qubit [wikipedia.org] " in quantum computing can hold many, many potential solutions all at once.

The result is what was a linear process is turned on its side and every solution is processed with a single quantum operation. With a quantum calculation, the "right" answer is arrived at quickly. What would take thousands or millions of years to run through serially can be done in a fraction of the time, as in minutes, as trillions of potential solutions are checked in one fell swoop.

How this is done sounds like magic to me. It has something to do with reading the "superposition" state of a qubit and then using probability to narrow through the possible solutions until you arrive at the correct one. I've heard it described as a simultaneous evaluation of multiple universes where each universe has a different, known solution, and then figuring out which universe we happen to be in.

The overall point is that any encryption algorythm which can be cracked by doing the same operation over and over until the key is found (but relies on the practical impossibility of doing that) is succeptable to quantum computers' massively parallel computations.

I don't know if this made any sense (I haven't read about quantum computing stuff for a few years so it's getting a little hazy), but this page [caltech.edu] is a good introduction to these concepts.

W

Re:Do we need quantum bits? (1)

Twinkle (84777) | more than 9 years ago | (#11662203)

There's a known quantum algorithm for factoring, which will break RSA (and equivalents), once we have the hardware to execute it.

A quantum computer will not be any faster at brute-forcing a symmetric algorithm.

In short, there is no magic.

Re:Do we need quantum bits? (1)

VValdo (10446) | more than 9 years ago | (#11661876)

On the other hand, a future which offers quantum computing may also provide unclonable encryption [perimeterinstitute.ca] and quantum key distribution [perimeterinstitute.ca] , which I understand is more secure than current encryption methods.

W

Re:Do we need quantum bits? (4, Interesting)

necama (10131) | more than 9 years ago | (#11661909)

Quantum key distribution is cryptographically equivalent to one time pads, but better -- it solves the key distribution problem; you don't need to take all the one-time pads with you when you leave.

Go watch a fleet prepare for setting to sea, and you'll see them loading one time pads onto the ship by forklift.

Re:Do we need quantum bits? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11661866)

Do we really need computers at all?
I mean, really, get off your ass and go outside. ;p

Re:Do we need quantum bits? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11661889)

I mean, really, get off your ass and go outside

and then what ???

Re:Do we need quantum bits? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11661895)

ony on slashdot this bullshit could be modded Insightful.. *sigh*

Re:Do we need quantum bits? (1)

ggambett (611421) | more than 9 years ago | (#11661962)

These sets of posts are called a "discussion" on the topic. So what's wrong with saying "I don't know about this, I feel this, what do you think?"?

Besides, what's up with civilized replies by registered users and STFU responses only by ACs?

Re:Do we need quantum bits? (0, Troll)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 9 years ago | (#11661997)

Actually, it's a matter of "I don't know jack crap about this, but I'm going to express my uninformed thoughts on it anyway without bothering to educate myself on the topic [wikipedia.org] ."

Re:Do we need quantum bits? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11662030)

When I check this "Post Anonymously" button I become a jackass.

Re:Do we need quantum bits? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11661991)

Correct, you know nothing of quantum computing. You may now shut-the-fuck up.

Re:Do we need quantum bits? (5, Insightful)

wass (72082) | more than 9 years ago | (#11662067)

That is, using quantum stuff as a new mechanics for our current paradigm, instead of coming up with a new paradigm that actually utilizes quantum properties fully.

That pretty much is what researchers in quantum computing are trying to do, it's a whole different ballgame. For example, In classical computing, 3 bits lets you put a system into exactly one of 8 (2^3) distinct states. However a quantum computer with 3 qubits will let you put the system into a superposition of these eight states, such that the superpositiong (ie, wavefunction) is properly normalized.

Quantum mechanics works in a whole different mathematical basis (Hilbert Space or Fock Space). The algebras of these spaces is quite different from classical computing, so yes, it's going to be a whole new way of looking at computing, at least at the lowest level.

On a side note, it sounds like you have just read some Thomas Kuhn, as per your frequent usage of 'paradigm', along with comparing 'evolution' to 'revolution'.

Re:Do we need quantum bits? (1)

ggambett (611421) | more than 9 years ago | (#11662172)

Thanks for the first actual reply to my question :)

I read some Kuhn a long time ago. You're right, I abused the words, but I think these are the best to express the concept I was trying to express.

We could be doing way better with what we have (1)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 9 years ago | (#11662074)

While miracle breaktrougs are useful, we don't have to wait for them to do something useful. We can already build faster/cheaper/lower power computers than we do today.

At what point is a computer powerful enough? (-1, Troll)

John Seminal (698722) | more than 9 years ago | (#11661740)

Okay, I get the whole arc that these nano computers will be very small. But for the home user, or even buisness user, at what point is the computing power enough?

I sometimes wonder if graduate students in physics are more like a william gibson book club, with some star trek and battlestar galactica thrown in. They are very creative smart people, but what is the cost of what they do? They could be finding cures to cancer, or making better space shuttles, or doing a ton of things with applications that would be useful. How is getting a 800 ghz computer with 500 gigs or ram and a 40 gig video card going to change things? Lets be honest here, does anyone think the games they played 10 years ago sucked when they were playing them?? It seems to me too much time and money is being invested in the wrong place.

Re:At what point is a computer powerful enough? (1)

Neuropol (665537) | more than 9 years ago | (#11661783)

you read slashdot?

Re:At what point is a computer powerful enough? (5, Funny)

Carlbunn (817714) | more than 9 years ago | (#11661784)

Bad, bad geek! There's no such thing as "too much computer power"

Re:At what point is a computer powerful enough? (1)

Neuropol (665537) | more than 9 years ago | (#11661802)

or a '40 Gig video card', for that matter.

More is all you need. (1)

solios (53048) | more than 9 years ago | (#11661819)

Computers will be "fast enough" when they can instant-on and operate at the speed of thought.

I'm talking no waiting for documents to load, or save. No swapping. No WAITING.

When the hardware/software reaches a point where it's a layer of skin over the fingers, it'll be Good Enough. We've progressed from thick woolen mittens to thick woolen gloves, but when it comes to operating transparency, we're not even to isotoner... let alone latex.

More is all you need.-McDonalds agrees. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11662214)

"Computers will be "fast enough" when they can instant-on and operate at the speed of thought."

It's called a secretary. Anyway the limitations will always be economic, not technological.

Re:At what point is a computer powerful enough? (1)

khromatikos (839805) | more than 9 years ago | (#11661828)

at what point is it powerful enough? when it can factor primes out of a 500 digit long number in less than 10 seconds; thus making public/private key encryption useless. How about using it to model very complex topics such as enviroment trends, or how space shuttles will preform under certain gravity or other such conditions? Why did we make these super-powerful calculators when we could have just stopped when we made the slide-rule?

What the hell? (5, Insightful)

mcc (14761) | more than 9 years ago | (#11661836)

They could be finding cures to cancer, or making better space shuttles, or doing a ton of things with applications that would be useful

Uh.. wow.

The people designing better computers aren't curing cancer because they aren't biologists. It isn't like intelligence is just something you can put in a pipe and direct it whereever you want. Some people are just better at certain things than others. Meanwhile the kinds of people who gravitate toward research fields tend to only be effective when they're doing things they find interesting and exciting. What they personally most enjoy or can best apply their talents toward may or may not be the most important thing in the world, but if it's productive and makes some sort of difference, who are we to question?

And why target the people improving computing power, and not any other "nonuseful" field? In particular, why on earth target people like the ones from this article, who are improving computing power by expanding our understanding of and ability to harness basic physics, and working in an area where discoveries potentially have direct applicability to all kinds of other nanoscale technologies, like, I don't know, smart medicines.

Even if your "couldn't they be doing something more useful" thing made sense, your examples are very poor. Better space shuttles aren't being built for a lack of ingenuity, they're being built for a lack of funding. And curing cancer in particular is a horrible example because much of the interesting expanding work in the medical research field at the moment is in bioinformatics. Meaning that cancer research would directly and seriously benefit from a major jump in the capacity of computing power, such as the one these nanocomputer people could make possible.

Re:What the hell? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11662222)

Not only that, but people designing better computers would probably have inadvertantly assisted in any cure, since it would involve massive bioinformatics computations and statistical procedures.

Re:At what point is a computer powerful enough? (1)

MAdMaxOr (834679) | more than 9 years ago | (#11661857)

> They could be finding cures to cancer, or making
> better space shuttles, or doing a ton of things
> with applications that would be useful. How is
> getting a 800 ghz computer with 500 gigs or ram
> and a 40 gig video card going to change things?

Have you ever thought that making a more powerful computer might be a key component to finding the cure to cancer?

Powerful computing enables scientists to do things like model proteins and DNA strands, and their interactions, in more and more detail.

Improved simulation capabilities will help all branches of science.

Re:At what point is a computer powerful enough? (1)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 9 years ago | (#11661890)

This comming from someone who has the Dukes of Hazzard drinking game listed in their journal?

Not that is funny!

Re:At what point is a computer powerful enough? (2, Insightful)

ca1v1n (135902) | more than 9 years ago | (#11661922)

40% of the US economy is dependent on applications of quantum mechanics, and all of the rest of it indirectly feels the effects.

Re:At what point is a computer powerful enough? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11662097)

"... or making better space shuttles, or doing a ton of things with applications that would be useful."

Dude, making a faster computer is infinitely more valuable then a new space shuttle. Having a faster computer will eventually allow more powerful space exploration, however, the only current point space shuttles is the hope there will be useful applications... such as faster computers.

Re:At what point is a computer powerful enough? (1)

mikael (484) | more than 9 years ago | (#11662126)

How is getting a 800 ghz computer with 500 gigs or ram and a 40 gig video card going to change things?

Such a computer would allow doctors and surgeons to take complete body scans of people at sub-millimetre resolutions and visualize them in real-time. Quite useful if you are trying to tell if someone has cancer, and if so, how far it has spread. Such a computer would also allow you to model complex protein-folding in real-time, thus helping identify which genes and chemicals could kill off the viruses/diseased cells. Plus it could also do the CAD and engineering required to design such a new spacecraft.

Re:At what point is a computer powerful enough? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11662173)

By the time you have 800 ghz, 500 gigs of ram, etc, etc, it will take every bit of it to run whatever version of Windows will be by then.

Re:At what point is a computer powerful enough? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11662243)

Much of cancer research is carried out on incredibly fast machines, more of which would be welcome. Do you have any idea how DNA and cells are studied and analyzed? There's entire university departments dedicated to the area where biology and computing meet, it's called bioinformatics, and it will play a role in any cure found for cancer. How did you think research is done? A single microarray would take 1,000 scientists 1,000 years to analyze by hand.

Solution (2, Funny)

Pan T. Hose (707794) | more than 9 years ago | (#11661754)

"Scientists have been having problems in predicting the behavior of Quantum Dots"

Couldn't they use the random number generator that sees into the future [slashdot.org] to predict the behavior of quantum dots? It was posted in Slashdot's Science section without the Funny Foot icon so it must be valid, just like the tsunami creatures [slashdot.org] . (Seriously, how can we not be sceptical about anything posted on Slashdot these days? When I read this headline the first thing I did was checking out on Google and Randi.org if quantum dots aren't just another new quack pseudoscience, and before I managed to verify their validity I had no time to read the article in question. Isn't there something wrong with a news source when the first thing I do is a research before I can trust anything I read? Isn't that a job of editors to verify their sources before posting stories? I just don't get it.)

Dilema (1)

island_tux (803586) | more than 9 years ago | (#11661861)

Does that mean that i should wait to upgrade my computer ?

from the FAQ (5, Informative)

wud (709053) | more than 9 years ago | (#11661886)

How do you verify the accuracy of Slashdot stories? We don't. You do. :) If something seems outrageous, we might look for some corroboration, but as a rule, we regard this as the responsibility of the submitter and the audience. This is why it's important to read comments. You might find something that refutes, or supports, the story in the main. Answered by: CmdrTaco Last Modified: 10/28/00

Re:Solution (1)

hmniq (805627) | more than 9 years ago | (#11662106)

What are your grounds for dismissing the random number generator story? I am interested because what I have read so far on the Princeton site [princeton.edu] has, at best, not convinced me either way on the matter.

What information have you that causes you to dismiss a serious scientific study to readily?

Re:Solution (1)

cardshark2001 (444650) | more than 9 years ago | (#11662212)

Isn't there something wrong with a news source when the first thing I do is a research before I can trust anything I read? Isn't that a job of editors to verify their sources before posting stories? I just don't get it.)

I hate to pull your soapbox out from under you bub, but, well, no. It's not the job of the editors. In fact, they explicitly tell you that in the FAQ [slashdot.org] , and you'd know that if you bothered to read it. I guess you'd rather just complain about not getting something you were explicitly not offered, for free. :)

Don't take this too harshly, I'm just razzing you. But really, go ahead and read the FAQ. Click the topic "How do you verify the accuracy of Slashdot stories?"

I wonder... (1, Funny)

Concerned Onlooker (473481) | more than 9 years ago | (#11661758)

...if this will have an effect on the quantum slash dot effect?

Re:I wonder... (1, Funny)

Concerned Onlooker (473481) | more than 9 years ago | (#11661779)

I probably could have worked "effect" in there one more time.

Re:I wonder... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11662047)

Quantum Slashdot effect?

Is that the one where you don't know if the server is burning until you check it?

Quantum Dots? (1)

Luke727 (547923) | more than 9 years ago | (#11661767)

The first thing I thought of was this [candyfavorites.com] .

There is no "University of Ohio" (3, Informative)

illumnatLA (820383) | more than 9 years ago | (#11661786)

It's Ohio University... Athens, Ohio not to be confused with Ohio State University an hour and a half northwest in Columbus.

Discount Quantum Dots (5, Funny)

EdgeTreader (63569) | more than 9 years ago | (#11661795)

"New & used Quantum Dots. aff Check out the huge selection now" ...ebay ad running next to TFA

That's the problem! Also, Osama. (2, Funny)

mr_luc (413048) | more than 9 years ago | (#11662118)

That's the problem. In this era of budget reduction, our scientists are now forced to buy their Quantum Dots off of Ebay.

Unfortunately, not only have many of these dots been defective, following the installation and usage instructions included with the Dot have left many of our top scientists sterile.

It is possible that this is a plot by Al Queida to weaken the population of intellectuals in the US.

Re:Discount Quantum Dots (1)

fossa (212602) | more than 9 years ago | (#11662263)

Don't buy them! I bought some, only to discover that they have a flaw in their construction. Probably somebody trying to unload their obsolete stock...

No University of Ohio (1)

glassesmonkey (684291) | more than 9 years ago | (#11661805)

While there are many universities in Ohio, there is no U of O. In this case they mean Ohio Univ (not to be confused with OSU)

There is no "University of Ohio" (4, Informative)

Asprin (545477) | more than 9 years ago | (#11661815)


We have The Ohio State University and Ohio University, but no University of Ohio... at least not in Ohio. [NOTE: There are a number of other state-funded Universities: Bowling Green, Toledo, Akron, Kent, Miami, Case Western Reserve, et. al., but none of them have 'Ohio' in their name, except maybe Miami, which is often called "Miami of Ohio" to distinguish it from Miami University in Florida.]

Re:There is no "University of Ohio" (1)

loyalsonofrutgers (736778) | more than 9 years ago | (#11661855)

Ah, actually the Miami in Florida is the University of Miami, the Miami in Ohio is Miami University.

Re:There is no "University of Ohio" (1)

MonsoonDawn (795807) | more than 9 years ago | (#11662209)

Case Western is private. I should know, I'm still paying them.

Re:There is no "University of Ohio" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11662231)

How many times does this info have to be posted before it gets modded "redundant"?

See here [slashdot.org]

Not that big an advance. (4, Informative)

caffeinated_bunsen (179721) | more than 9 years ago | (#11661825)

This only applies to self-assembled quantum dots. The ones created by lithography or otherwise manually constructed didn't have this problem in the first place. Don't get too excited (unless you're working with photoexcitation in self-assembled QDs, in which case this might matter to you).

Please clarify for the rest of us (1)

mcc (14761) | more than 9 years ago | (#11661972)

Is there some reason why self-assembled quantum dots might be more promising, useful or easily mass produced than ones created by photolithography?

Conversely is there some reason why lithographically constructed quantum dots might be more promising, useful or easily mass produced than "self-assembled" ones?

What is the importance of the distinction?

Re:Please clarify for the rest of us (1)

the_pooh_experience (596177) | more than 9 years ago | (#11662117)

It all comes down to ease of manufacturing. Self assembly is just that... if you prepare the mixtures in the right order, the thing creates itself (yes this is a bit dumbed down).

However if one has to lithographically construct dots, you will run into all the problems that people are runnning into now with lithography, and the most important... throughput! If one can make 8 of these at one time in one chamber, or alternatively have people define them a piece of a wafer at a time by machine, which would you prefer?

On the other hand, if one lithographically defines QDs, then there one has more control over the dots (geometry, orientation, etc).

Re:Please clarify for the rest of us (1)

wass (72082) | more than 9 years ago | (#11662233)

Self-assembled systems can feasibly be very small (several atoms), a la DNA (a natural self-assembling system). Lithographic systems (electron beam or optical) are limited by diffraction of the corresponding electrons or photons used to expose the photoresist, as well as the surface properties of the photoresist itself. For these methods the minimum feature size producable can be of order 10 nm for e-beam lithography, and 100 to 1000 nm for optical lithography, depending on wavelength. Self-assembled systems could possibly be as small as order 1 nm in size.

Uhh.. question. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11661849)

Is the technology in this article for use in quantum computers?

Or nanocomputers, i.e. normal computers that just happen to be created through nanotechnology methods?

Please explain, thanks.

Unintentional humor (0, Redundant)

scribblej (195445) | more than 9 years ago | (#11661854)

The article at Physorg has the title:
Scientists find flaw in quantum dot construction

Just below this I see a google ad:

Discount Quantum Dots
New & used Quantum Dots. aff Check out the huge selection now!
www.eBay.com

Heh!

Re:Unintentional humor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11661951)

Amazon also sell meat, which leads to this advert within their site

"MEATS
Prime Rib: 12 new. 1 second-hand"

Would you hit it? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11661859)

Re:Would you hit it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11662257)

3 or 4 times a day from what I saw...

Not a flaw... an experimental problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11661871)

They didn't prove that there was something fundamentally wrong with Quantum Dots all they found was that there were problems getting thier experiment to work... which they already have a work around for. "But a fine residue left behind on the surface that Ulloa calls the "wetting layer" can cause problems during experiments."

What they meant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11661932)

They were not trying to say a flaw was found in quantum dots themselves, I don't think. What they meant was that a flaw was found in the previously used method of quantum dot construction.

Official Press Release (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11661946)

Here is the official press release [ohiou.edu] on the Ohio University website [ohiou.edu] .

Out of the Physorg Tarpit ORIGINAL ARTICLE (4, Informative)

argent (18001) | more than 9 years ago | (#11661952)

Is there some relationship between /. and PhysOrg? If so, Commander Taco should be ashamed of it... PhysOrg is an eyeball tarpit, it NEVER credits the original article or provides a link back to it. Never. Not once. It might as well be dead trees...

Here's the original article at Ohio University [ohiou.edu] without the PhysOrg spam.

Re:Out of the Physorg Tarpit ORIGINAL ARTICLE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11662057)

So what? I don't go to Ohio University website to read the news. As long as the info is correct, I don't care if there are any links.

Go search /. for physorg (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11662202)

....loooooooooots of stories (linked from the front page, not comments) link to physorg. Interesting for usre. i'm starting to distrust this place more and more. Not to mention Roland Whathisbucket getting posted all the time, never rejected.

Heisenberg (2, Funny)

moof1138 (215921) | more than 9 years ago | (#11662015)

Heisenberg was driving down the road, and a policeman pulled him over. He asked, "do you know how fast you were going?" Heisenberg replied, "no, but I can tell you where I am."

Fix the sprayer or go easier on that "paint" (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11662071)

Hmm, having problems with spray painting with energy on quantum dots at an atomic level because the current stabilization coating won't allow light through the "paint"? Seems like they need to look at a clear coat paint (read: possibly different energy frequencies that will not cause the overcoating effect).

Alternately, how about doing something like sputtered thin film (a hard drive surface coating technology) on a quantum level, which might reduce the thickness of the stabilization coat and allow a enough light to trigger the switch (Can't fix the "paint"? Fix the "sprayer").

And, of course, the obvious obligatory comment for this article - A computer the size of a grain of sand? Dots nice, but how do I connect the keyboard...

Caught again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11662120)

"We first mentioned this about six years ago"

Oh, so you admit that it's a dup?

Re:Caught again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11662196)

Wish I had some mod points so Icould mod this Funny

yes.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11662140)

but when do I get my open source-equivalent of
"The Sim's?"

We first mentioned this six years ago... (3, Funny)

jea6 (117959) | more than 9 years ago | (#11662216)

We first mentioned this six years ago...



How absurd and inanely pretentious. It's astounding that the search engine the editors are using allows them to say "it's a dupe from six years ago" but not be able to recognize the dupe from yesterday. Sheesh.

Quantum Exploit Detected (2, Funny)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 9 years ago | (#11662250)

Ads by Goooooogle

----- Technologies
Quantum Cryptography solutions, consulting, and evaluations.
www.-----.com

Quantum Dots
Article in BusinessWeek Read it online. Free Trial!
www.-----.com

You Like Quantum Physics?
Have The Extreme Wealth and Success You Desire In Six Easy Steps!
-----.com


Now somebody's obviously banking on the idea that quantum physicists are most likely to fall for the six step scheme. Perhaps they'll get stuck on "Step 5: ???" and spend the rest of their natural lives trying to solve for ???.

Ohio (1)

mattthateeguy (850214) | more than 9 years ago | (#11662267)

I am from Ohio, and I have never heard of an University of Ohio; maybe Ohio University.

Star Trek? (5, Funny)

jpop32 (596022) | more than 9 years ago | (#11662297)

Doesn't the article read just like your typical Star Trek plot?

You have a noble experiment:
Nanoscientists dream of developing a quantum computer, a device the size of a grain of sand that could be faster and more powerful than today's PCs.
So, after they have
blasted the quantum dots with light to create the quantum mechanical state
they encounter the problem:
they couldn't consistently control that state
So, the science officers get the work and after some time the find out the cause of the problem:
the wetting layer caused interference, instead of allowing the light to enter the dot and trigger the quantum state

And, after some hard thinking Wesley Crusher...
suggests that scientists could tweak the process by re-focusing the beam of light or changing the duration of the light pulses to negate the effects of the wetting layer!

And the day is saved.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>