Moores law and star trek

A place to discuss the science of computers and programs, from algorithms to computability.

Formal proofs preferred.

Moderators: phlip, Moderators General, Prelates

drewder
Posts: 33
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2011 11:47 am UTC

Moores law and star trek

Postby drewder » Thu Aug 20, 2015 8:29 pm UTC

So if Moore's law continued unabated till the 24th century how powerful would the enterprise's (D) computer be?

Tub
Posts: 475
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 3:13 pm UTC

Re: Moores law and star trek

Postby Tub » Fri Aug 21, 2015 9:57 am UTC

300 years in the future, they would be around 2300/2 = 1.4*1045 times as powerful as today's computers.

Except that Moore's law doesn't say anything about computing power. It merely says that transistor structures keep shrinking; thus doubling the amount of transistors in a given area of silicone every two years.

We're currently at 14nm transistor structures.

In 90 years, transistors would be smaller than the electrons (2.8 * 10-15) meant to pass through them.

In 300 years, we'd be down to about 3.7*10-31 m per transistor.

In 358 years (still within the 24th century), transistors would need to be smaller than the planck lenght. I'd like to see the technobabble they use to explain that.

speising
Posts: 2365
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: Moores law and star trek

Postby speising » Fri Aug 21, 2015 10:21 am UTC

subspace.

User avatar
PeteP
What the peck?
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

Re: Moores law and star trek

Postby PeteP » Fri Aug 21, 2015 11:09 am UTC

well alternatively the package volume could start doubling since moores law doesn't explicitely say the number grows because the components become smaller. (Spoiler: that gets a bit too big.)

User avatar
Whizbang
The Best Reporter
Posts: 2238
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:50 pm UTC
Location: New Hampshire, USA

Re: Moores law and star trek

Postby Whizbang » Fri Aug 21, 2015 1:38 pm UTC


speising
Posts: 2365
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: Moores law and star trek

Postby speising » Fri Aug 21, 2015 2:47 pm UTC

It should more properly be called "Moore's observation" anyway. "Law" only invites abuse as a predictor.

User avatar
Flumble
Yes Man
Posts: 2264
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:35 pm UTC

Re: Moores law and star trek

Postby Flumble » Fri Aug 21, 2015 3:17 pm UTC

speising wrote:It should more properly be called "Moore's observation" anyway. "Law" only invites abuse as a predictor.

I really like the form of abuse where a whole research industry has to work their asses off to get 7nm architecture in production by 2018.

[edit] oops, I'm responding in the topic that has a duplicate: viewtopic.php?f=36&t=110762&p=3712843#p3712843

wumpus
Posts: 546
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 12:16 am UTC

Re: Moores law and star trek

Postby wumpus » Sat Aug 22, 2015 3:52 pm UTC

speising wrote:It should more properly be called "Moore's observation" anyway. "Law" only invites abuse as a predictor.


Except that Moore's "Law" has been good for 6 orders of magnitude. Can Boyle's "law" do as well? How about the Ideal Gas "Law"? Don't ask about things like Gresham's "Law".

"Law" might be appropriate in that it is tied to a period in time. Much like laws about flagmen appearing in front of cars to avoid scaring the horses. This one has had a very good run, and might well continue past Moore's 10-year expectation with the minor adjustment of "stored bit" for "transistor". 3D flash (which *is* transistors) and 3D-Xpoint (which presumably isn't) should at least pack more and more onto a chip, regardless of the "node length".


Return to “Computer Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests