3 ms·
we still don't have the computational power to do things atom-by-atom That's what puzzles me about this discussion. Of course we don't. The goal here is to mo
by ctdonath 9y ago
we still don't have the computational power to do things atom-by-atom
That's what puzzles me about this discussion.
Of course we don't. The goal here is to model more atoms than we have atoms to model with. Until we get to quantum computers that can represent more information per atom, than information per atom we want to represent, it's simply a matter of objectively & obviously inadequate resources. You can't simulate wind shear on a plane when there's more atoms in that wind & plane than there are in the computer simulating them: every single atom being simulated contains the complete information about its state (information independent of any other atom), so simulating it will require at least one atom per atom simulated - if you don't have at least as many atoms to simulate as you are simulating, you can't achieve a complete simulation.
- evandijk70 9y agoIt is not necessarily the goal to model more atoms than we have atoms to model with. The goal can be, for example, to model a folding protein, which has fewer atoms than a CPU.
- njarboe 9y agoAnd one might be happy to spend a month computing the folding while in the cell it takes a few seconds.
- pcvarmint 9y agoThat may be true of digital computers, but it's not necessarily true of analog ones.