4 ms·

Our galaxy has ~10^70 atoms. At an atom per compute element, we will use 1/10^10 of our entire galaxy for our own compute? 10^60 is a bit more than the number o

by abrgr 9y ago

Our galaxy has ~10^70 atoms. At an atom per compute element, we will use 1/10^10 of our entire galaxy for our own compute? 10^60 is a bit more than the number of atoms in our sun. Given our sub-exponential space advances over the last 50 years, it seems... ambitious... to turn our sun into a computer in the next 300. If they're saying we'll be an interstellar spacefaring civilization in much less than 300 years, they really buried their lead :)

Iv 9y ago
> If they're saying we'll be an interstellar spacefaring civilization in much less than 300 years, they really buried their lead :) If you think we can't reach Kardashev scale I in 300 years you are really pessimistic! We have, right now, the technology to go visit other stars. It would take a sizable amount of the world's GDP but it is possible. I certainly hope that in 300 years we will have explored other systems!
- xelxebar 9y ago
  Actually, people are already working on getting to Alpha Centauri within a reasonable timescale and without exhausting the world's GDP [1] ! [1] https://breakthroughinitiatives.org/Initiative/3 https://breakthroughinitiatives.org/Initiative/3
  - akvadrako 9y ago
    I'm not saying it's impossible, but I wouldn't trust these guys to do anything. The funding is basically all from one russian oligarch who probably does it for fun then gets board. Their last initiative was much less ambitious, yet after several years the website just says "Details of the competition will be announced soon." [1] https://breakthroughinitiatives.org/Initiative/2 https://breakthroughinitiatives.org/Initiative/2
  - 0x4f3759df 9y ago
    http://www.positrondynamics.com http://www.positrondynamics.com
- adrianN 9y ago
  Where a sizeable amount is about the size of the Manhatten Project, so, in fact, not all that much.
mdonahoe 9y ago
Perhaps quantum computers 300 years from now won't use an atom per compute element.
DonaldFisk 9y ago
Mass of the sun: 2 x 10^30 kg Mass of a hydrogen atom: 1.67 x 10^-27 kg So there are 1.2 x 10^57 atoms in the sun. And we need the sun. The mismatch is caused by someone extrapolating an exponential trend in one area well into the future, ignoring physical reality. Anyone with a good grasp of high-school physics should have noticed this before the slides were released.

by abrgr 9y ago

Iv 9y ago

> If they're saying we'll be an interstellar spacefaring civilization in much less than 300 years, they really buried their lead :) If you think we can't reach Kardashev scale I in 300 years you are really pessimistic! We have, right now, the technology to go visit other stars. It would take a sizable amount of the world's GDP but it is possible. I certainly hope that in 300 years we will have explored other systems!

xelxebar 9y ago
Actually, people are already working on getting to Alpha Centauri within a reasonable timescale and without exhausting the world's GDP [1] ! [1] https://breakthroughinitiatives.org/Initiative/3 https://breakthroughinitiatives.org/Initiative/3
- akvadrako 9y ago
  I'm not saying it's impossible, but I wouldn't trust these guys to do anything. The funding is basically all from one russian oligarch who probably does it for fun then gets board. Their last initiative was much less ambitious, yet after several years the website just says "Details of the competition will be announced soon." [1] https://breakthroughinitiatives.org/Initiative/2 https://breakthroughinitiatives.org/Initiative/2
- 0x4f3759df 9y ago
  http://www.positrondynamics.com http://www.positrondynamics.com
adrianN 9y ago
Where a sizeable amount is about the size of the Manhatten Project, so, in fact, not all that much.

mdonahoe 9y ago

Perhaps quantum computers 300 years from now won't use an atom per compute element.

DonaldFisk 9y ago

Mass of the sun: 2 x 10^30 kg Mass of a hydrogen atom: 1.67 x 10^-27 kg So there are 1.2 x 10^57 atoms in the sun. And we need the sun. The mismatch is caused by someone extrapolating an exponential trend in one area well into the future, ignoring physical reality. Anyone with a good grasp of high-school physics should have noticed this before the slides were released.