As you may have noticed, I'm a big 'ole nerd with an obsession for tech. I caught the tech bug in the early 00's, at an historic moment in computing evolution. There was so much going on in the field that it was hard NOT to get hooked, if you were paying attention. Things have slowed down substantially since those early days, but just this week, I saw a confluence of headlines that makes me think we're not far off from our next computing explosion.
A superconducting qubit from a 2016 article on New Scientist that sheds light on one promising path forward for computing
In just a few years time after the Y2K fiasco, computing EXPLODED. We saw AMD challenge Intel's market dominance, slashing the price of processing power and setting in motion technological breakthroughs that unlocked so much of what we can do today. AMD broke the 1Ghz barrier, brought 64-bit computing to the mainstream, and proved that dual-core processors didn't have to suck (srsly, does anyone remember the early Pentium D's? LOL). Their radical and rapid wins shook Intel into the era it's enjoyed since, from Core2Duo to today's i-series through a series of "ticks" and "tocks" that have now ground to a halt.
Turns out you can't maintain such a breakneck pace forever. At least in today's economy, market forces don't seem to allow it. Sure, processors are smaller and faster and more energy-efficient than ever before, but they're not moving forward technologically like they were back then. But that may be on the verge of changing.
The first two articles that got me stoked for the future of computing this week both had to do with graphene nanotubes.
OOOOH! AHHHHH! (MIT via Engadget)
In the first one, Engadget reported that MIT and Stanford have figured out a novel way to smash together multiple core components into a smaller and more efficient package. Although certainly revolutionary, this falls a bit more on the iterative end of the spectrum than the truly transcendent-- it's a similar philosophy that's led to the decreasing die sizes and increased core count typical of today's market (à la Moore's Law).
Sounds like they've got DARPA and the National Science Foundation on their side... partners like those definitely raise the seriousness bar a few notches!
The second article comes from Ars Technica, and tells the tale of similar iteration over at IBM. According to the author, they've been hacking away at carbon nanotube tech since at least 2012, and with an expected product cycle of 10 years, that means we may not be too far out from seeing some results enter the mainstream!
At least that's the hope. The article's a bit thin on details, but it does link to a juicier source for those who may be so inclined. Really it was the timetable that stuck with me-- I forgot how long people have been probing the possibilities of nanotubes, and this reminder reinforced the potential of the first article. When several big players are aiming at the same goal, it's just a matter of time before we hear something juicy!
This sudden surge in nanotube hype this week inspired me to check in on an old friend of mine-- quantum computing. I have to admit, I'm not 100% sure I REALLY understand what the hell it is, but I know enough to be awed and impressed.
A "geometrical representation of the pure state space of a two-level quantum mechanical system (qubit)," aka idk wtf I'm looking at, but it seems important
Whereas graphene nanontubes represent an iteration of current processes of technological evolution, quantum computing promises to be an entirely new paradigm. I've been aware of the hype train for a few years now, but hadn't checked in on it in a minute. Turns out there have been some juicy headlines lately!
Scientific American put out a GREAT writeup just the other day that checks into IBM and Googles' progress towards "quantum supremacy." That term sounded dramatic, which led me to the second article, from New Scientist not long ago. I remember hearing the buzz about Google and D-Wave back in the day, but hadn't realized that Google planned to drop something by the end of this year (!!!).
Again, it was the timeframe that stuck out to me in these articles-- we've got breakthroughs in nanotube tech with impending result-deadlines alongside the promise of quantum computing that's also looming right around the corner. All this adds up, and I can't help but feel like we're in store for another 00's-paced wild ride of tech evolution.
I fully expect us to be a few years away from the full breakneck pace of the mid-00s, and I bet I'll be able to buy a useful 3D/graphene-based system before I own a productive quantum computer. But whatever the next era of tech evolution holds, it's sure to be more exciting than the death throes of the last one.
John Preskill, a theoretical physicist from CalTech, really ties it all together in the Scientific American article: “These quantum systems kind of speak a language that digital systems don’t speak,” he says. “We know from history that we just don’t have the imagination to anticipate where new information technologies can carry us.” (emphasis added)
