3 ms·

20 years sounds optimistic for "ubiquitous". Consider: it took over a century to go from Maxwell's equations (1861 and 1862) to modern cell phones. It took ov

by marvy 10y ago

20 years sounds optimistic for "ubiquitous". Consider: it took over a century to go from Maxwell's equations (1861 and 1862) to modern cell phones. It took over a century from the time that Babbage proposed his analytical engine to the first working general purpose computer. The dawn of quantum computing can be traced back to, maybe, at earliest, the early 1960s. (Based on cursory Wikipedia browsing.) It took several decades to get Shor's algorithm, which finally got people to take quantum computing seriously. If we have quantum computers comparable to ENIAC by 2060, I'll be pretty impressed.

davnicwil 10y ago
I really don't want to just bang the 'exponential progress' drum but you're probably not accounting for it enough with these examples. The ubiquity of computers and phones isn't just a consequence of the theory underpinning them being developed into industrial applications, but of the myriad related ways that industrial engineering, society, and the economy had to develop to support and necessitate their existence. Those last two were indeed probably the most viscous factors in the way of technological progress, up to this point, more so than the science and engineering challenges involved, though they are clearly all interlinked. Now, however, it's probably the case that the scientific and engineering challenges are the biggest hurdles - we already have the society and economy hungry for more computing power. Assuming the necessary breakthroughs can be made to make quantum computing a reality in the next 10-15 years (obviously a big assumption, and not intending at all to sweep that aside, it could take decades, but just let's make that assumption) it's not at all difficult to see how it could rapidly find its way into production and then ubiquitous industrial application, and 20 years then does not sound outlandish at all.
- marvy 10y ago
  I admit that if you postulate that all needed breakthroughs are done within 10 years, then it starts looking plausible. But as you said, that's a BIG assumption.

by marvy 10y ago

davnicwil 10y ago

I really don't want to just bang the 'exponential progress' drum but you're probably not accounting for it enough with these examples. The ubiquity of computers and phones isn't just a consequence of the theory underpinning them being developed into industrial applications, but of the myriad related ways that industrial engineering, society, and the economy had to develop to support and necessitate their existence. Those last two were indeed probably the most viscous factors in the way of technological progress, up to this point, more so than the science and engineering challenges involved, though they are clearly all interlinked. Now, however, it's probably the case that the scientific and engineering challenges are the biggest hurdles - we already have the society and economy hungry for more computing power. Assuming the necessary breakthroughs can be made to make quantum computing a reality in the next 10-15 years (obviously a big assumption, and not intending at all to sweep that aside, it could take decades, but just let's make that assumption) it's not at all difficult to see how it could rapidly find its way into production and then ubiquitous industrial application, and 20 years then does not sound outlandish at all.

marvy 10y ago
I admit that if you postulate that all needed breakthroughs are done within 10 years, then it starts looking plausible. But as you said, that's a BIG assumption.