(Answering 2 related mails) On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:13:46 PDT, NM Research <nm_research@yahoo.com> said: > I feel that I have valid arguements against some current quantum coding, > gates, qubits, etc. I am more for a statiscally and AI approach rather than > protocols. On the other hand, the current coding/gates/qubits/etc has been demonstrating actual success at several hundred kilometers distance. You can argue "statistically and AI" all you want, but it's a tough argument against working hardware... You also seem to be *vastly* confused regarding protocols. I fail to see how you intend to have *any* functional product that doesn't implement a protocol. A protocol is just an agreed-on method for doing things in a consistent order known to produce a desired result. Dialing a person's phone number correctly is a protocol - get them in the right order, you reach the person you wanted, do it wrong and if you're lucky, you'll get the "Your call cannot be completed as dialed" message... Consider the following "breakfast protocol": "(1) Take 3 eggs. (2) Break eggs into bowl, discarding shells. (3) Beat eggs. (4) Heat frying pan over burner. (5) Pour eggs into pan, stir occasionally. (6) When done, turn off burner, and put eggs on plate (7) Eat". That's a protocol for making scrambled eggs. Now statistically, I could say there's 7! ways to order these steps, of which some very small number produce edible eggs, and some orderings are merely icky (forgetting to discard the shells, or failing to turn on the burner, for instance), while some are hazardous (failing to get the pan onto the burner before pouring the eggs onto the burner, or failing to turn off the burner). Most people prefer to follow the kitchen protocols because they know what to expect when they finish. A very small number of people experiment with the kitchen protocols - this requires deep understanding of why the protocols are the way they are, and the ability to predict what protocols are destined for success or failure. I suppose we COULD call these people "kitchen protocol designers", but most people just call them chefs.... Now you're quite welcome to design a statistical cell phone. I suspect that most people want a nice predictable workable one that follows a protocol of some sort. > Furthermore with wavelength, frequency and polarity you could assign > each and every word a place/bit. If the IETF is not carefully something will > come a long that will kill them like fidonet. It is not remote : IPv6 and > Internet 2 may be still born. Not really. All the IETF needs to do is write a "IP over FOO" document and we're done. ;) You're confusing the distinction between link-level transport and what most end users actually care about - application-to-application communication. IPv6 and Internet2 don't *care* about what medium they're running over - there's no technical reason to prohibit avian-based IPv6 a la RFC1149, or IPv6 over telepathy. And end users don't usually know or care - they launch their e-mail software, and their mail moves from their mail server to their client. On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 23:13:34 -0700, NM Research <nm_research@yahoo.com> said: > About the feasibility of 4g systems. I feel that they have a bright future, > if and only if the human understanding of the particulate nature of > electromagnetic radiation is not enhanced to the level of manipulation and > usage, and remains primitive as it current exists. I would recommend that you go back and re-read the famous double-slit experiment until *you* understand EM radiation's particulate nature - or lack thereof. And to avoid being called a crank, please remember that the current "primitive" EM and QM theory has been *highly* successful, and unless your "enhanced" theory does a BETTER job of explaining things, it won't be taken seriously. Quick sanity check for your theory: Use it to compute the thermal noise emitted by a reverse-biased zener diode. If it doesn't get it right, figure out why. If you don't understand why I picked that, you're in *WAY* over your head... There's little to no evidence for an imminent breakthrough in our understanding. And even if somebody had such a break-through *TODAY*, you're still looking at several *decades* before we have any real fallout. For example, look at when Einstein did his work on the photoelectric effect (1905) - this had hints that lasers were possible (I have to admit not remembering if that paper predicted photon cascading, or what later paper did so). The first laser actually came around in the 1950s. And when did we actually see widespread deployment of surgical lasers and LED lasers for fiberoptic use? I think it's safe to assume that the market will choose a 4G device available NOW rather than wait 20 years for a quantum device..... > If organizations like CERN can manage to manipulate em-radiation > communications at quantum level, then there will be quantum wireless > communications. With Wifi already in the market, 3g, 4g will be a sure flop if > such an innovation comes. Oh my, *such* a confusion of ideas here. Let's look at what CERN does: * They spend *tens of millions* of dollars. * *very high* energies - major drain on the power grid when running * All the action happens in several cubic meters * millions of events (data rates approacing terabytes per second here) * If a researcher finds ONE or TWO events out of the millions, he gets a Nobel. Consumer technology: * Has to be *cheap* - $49 or "free with 2-year service contract" phones.... * low power (we're talking a cell phone battery here - the use of something other than standard radio waves doesn't change the fact that there's a certain upper limit to what a safe chemical battery can store per kilogram - and if you're positing a cheap and safe sub-kilogram nuclear/fusion/whatever power source, the societal implications of THAT far outweigh quantum communications) * People want to be able to call more than a few meters * they don't like making dozens of phone calls before they get the right person. For another data point, I suggest you read Eric Drexler's "Engines of Creation", look at the date that was published, look at the *current* state of nanotechnology, and remember that nanotech does *NOT* involve any conceptual breakthroughs, it's *all* engineering. Then ask yourself why you're convinced that the IETF needs to worry about world-wide point-to-point QM communications (check that power budget again ;) anytime soon?
Attachment:
pgp00282.pgp
Description: PGP signature