Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mel_Vixen]

Well Heisenbergsuncertainty principle is iirc the problem here since you cant know the position and the state of a given particle at the same time. It also states:

"The measurement of the position of a quantum object is necessarily a fault with its associated momentum, and vice versa."

Some US-scientists on the other hand have entangled quantum systems. With a reasonable big and designed quantum-system (wild guess zone entered) it could be possible to use side-effects (change in magnet fields or whatever) of a state-change to determine the state of such a system without measuring it directly. This indirect measuring shouldnt disturb the state of a quantum-system.


The no-communication theorem could then tested by a setting up a "Sender" which does not one but a number of predifined changes on system A which changes or changes not system B. If B changes at the same rate and in the same way as system A your no-communication-theorem should be proved/disproved.

[edit:] our scientists in Genf have also shown that the information transport works somehow. They say:

"Da geschieht etwas wirklich  befremdliches, etwas außerhalb der Raumzeit."   >>"There happens something very strange outside of Space-time"

[G-Flex]

You cannot transfer information using the entanglement process by ITSELF, though.

Yeah, there's weird stuff at a distance going on, but that alone is not enough, it's just an important part of it. Wikipedia gives a sort of overview of the process.

[Vengeful Donut]

Re: arguments over whether Java is fast or slow.
The score for Java in the shootout isn't so bad. Just 1.4 times the score that C++ got. If your reason for using java is that it's "higher level", then you could bear switching to a functional language. ATL scored better than java, although I bet it got there using imperative code. Haskell isn't that far behind, and their implementations were certainly done using a functional approach.

[Corona688]

Re: arguments over whether Java is fast or slow.
The score for Java in the shootout isn't so bad. Just 1.4 times the score that C++ got. If your reason for using java is that it's "higher level", then you could bear switching to a functional language. ATL scored better than java, although I bet it got there using imperative code. Haskell isn't that far behind, and their implementations were certainly done using a functional approach.

That only weighs the speed of running code, not the weight of loading the interpreter.

[Kilo24]

Re: arguments over whether Java is fast or slow.
The score for Java in the shootout isn't so bad. Just 1.4 times the score that C++ got. If your reason for using java is that it's "higher level", then you could bear switching to a functional language. ATL scored better than java, although I bet it got there using imperative code. Haskell isn't that far behind, and their implementations were certainly done using a functional approach.

That only weighs the speed of running code, not the weight of loading the interpreter.

My original comments in this regard were about theoretical speeds for complicated code, not the actual ones.  The best implementation with regards to runtime efficiency in machine code (and C and in many other low-level languages) will be strictly superior to Java's implementation - never mind that it might take a dedicated genius a thousand years to find it in a piece of non-trivial code.  And the larger the code gets, the more arcane optimizations appear that compilers might find, but it would take humans coding it a long while to do.

Therefore, the non-trivial code that the posted comparisons have been running is not directly applicable.  We're talking about Moore's Law here: the raw computing power is most accurately measured in how many simple operations it can do per second, not in how quickly it renders OpenGL.  Raw computing power is less important than a few other diagnostics in non-trivial code because there are many points at which the compiled/interpreted code instructs the computer to do redundant or irrelevant things, some of which a compiler could or a human couldn't catch.  Java's Virtual Machine guarantees a few wasted resources right off the bat, therefore that means that it's automatically slower than what a lower-level code could theoretically accomplish.  That doesn't ever mean that that delay will be significant to the user.

[Armok]

Assembler will always beat the living crap out of every other language in terms of raw speed.

[Starver]

Assembler will always beat the living crap out of every other language in terms of raw speed.

Microcode FTW!

[Rowanas]

SILENCE!

C++ HAS SPOKEN.

[Armok]

Assembler will always beat the living crap out of every other language in terms of raw speed.

Microcode FTW!

[Sizik]

Well the fastests way to transfer data would be Quantum-teleporting which has proven to be 10.000 times faster then light which could solve the sync-problem of modern chips (it also could replace many Data-transfer technologys). Quantum computing as itself *shrug* lets hope it comes soon.

Quantum-entanglement teleporting exists, but it can't be used to transport matter or energy or even information at faster-than-light speeds. I have no idea why, but this might provide some info. But basically, you can't communicate at superluminal speeds.

Granted, it's still useful.

Your link is broken.