How widespread do you think transporter technology is?

[Timo]

Suggestions as to where? Star Trek?

Computing in some really wild science fiction is suggested to be an operation tied to the fundamental entropy of the universe. Computing as currently understood is an abstraction without any physical connotations. There's no more an allocated energy quantum for multiplication than there is an allocated energy quantum for saying a prayer or imagining the scent of a flower.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[JarodRussell]

Suggestions as to where? Star Trek?

Computing in some really wild science fiction is suggested to be an operation tied to the fundamental entropy of the universe. Computing as currently understood is an abstraction without any physical connotations. There's no more an allocated energy quantum for multiplication than there is an allocated energy quantum for saying a prayer or imagining the scent of a flower.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Timo]

What ""?

You have presented no proof for your outrageous claim that computing would require power. Until you do, I'll simply hold you in ridicule.

On the off chance that you do know what you are talking about, how about spending even one post out of five trying to explain your (frankly really weird) position?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[JarodRussell]

Quite frankly, I'm just totally irritated right now by your posts.

So you say that computing doesn't require power? Why does my CPU then need more energy in form of electricity and emits a lot more energy in the form of heat when it solves complex tasks and less energy when it is idle? Does a notebook require the same power as a cluster of super computers?

 

[Timo]

Does a notebook require the same power as a cluster of super computers?

See, that's my argument. You can count "2+2" on a notebook, or on a vacuum-tube computer, or a modern supercomputer, and every time you spend a different amount of power. Between the various techniques, the amount of power spent is in no way related to the amount of computing being done. It's only related to the mechanical properties of the machine doing the computing. And even within a single machine, doing a thousand calculations may not necessarily consume any more power than doing a hundred.

To apply that to the "is transporting power expensive?" thing, it's clear that the power costs of transporting depend only on the nature of the machinery, not on any sort of fundamental physical limitations. If an old ENIAC were doing the computing, it would probably require a lot of power. If a modern supercomputer were doing it, much less power would be spent. And if that trend continues, a Trek supercomputer could do it all for two and a half watts.

The main thing is, you have failed to demonstrate any sort of a positive connection between computational operations and power spent on them. There is no evidence presented so far that doing ten calculations would be automatically more power-expensive than doing two, much less that ten calculations would need five times as much power as two. Modern science doesn't think that such evidence would exist, either. The obvious conclusion is that while complex computations may take more power than simple ones, a trillion multiplications done with 24th century hardware need not consume any more power than twenty-two multiplications done with 1950s hardware, and may in fact consume much less.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[JarodRussell]

To apply that to the "is transporting power expensive?" thing, it's clear that the power costs of transporting depend only on the nature of the machinery, not on any sort of fundamental physical limitations. If an old ENIAC were doing the computing, it would probably require a lot of power. If a modern supercomputer were doing it, much less power would be spent. And if that trend continues, a Trek supercomputer could do it all for two and a half watts.

Ah, okay, now I get it.


The actual amount of energy needed to compute something is depending on the hardware used, that's right. BUT the algorithms don't change. An addition requires less operations than a multiplication. Processing 1 billion atoms requires more operations than processing only 500 million and interpolating the rest.

That's why in computer science the operating time of an algorithm is given in steps/operations. Each operation needs a hardware specific amount of time and energy. But the fact is that each operation needs time and energy. And that means that on the same hardware, a complex task needs more energy than a simple task. Hence, a "high resolution" transport would need more energy than a "low resolution" transport.


*edit*
And I'm sure I've read about a potential limit of minimal energy consumption of (quantum) computers. Trying to find that article at the moment.

 

[Timo]

That doesn't mean that a high resolution transport would require more energy than a flashlight battery's worth in absolute terms, though - which is the crucial issue in determining whether transporting is a feasible way to commute.

Nor does it mean that a high resolution transport would require a set percentage more energy than a low resolution one, as the contributions of individual computations to the power consumption of the device might be negligible in comparison with the fixed power costs of the act of computing. So the choice between high and low resolution might be independent of power considerations; one might spend more power thinking about it than in choosing the high-res alternative right away.

The idea that all means of computing would consume a set amount of power and time per operation is also questionable, as it holds true to certain of today's computing techniques but not all of them. In purely mechanical computing, say, there would be power advantages to doing multiple simultaneous operations. An integrated circuit won't enjoy such benefits, but Trek computers aren't based on integrated circuits. We don't even know for sure if they are digital in nature.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[EmperorTiberius]

In one episode, Geordi replicates 500 rubik's cubes, and it takes him several hours and the ship had to drop out of freakin' warp!

Since this never happened, it's equally good proof that transporting actually generates energy, plus free mint chokolates for every transportee.

what?

 

[Timo]

What "what"? There's no episode where LaForge would have replicated 500 Rubik's cubes and taken the ship out of warp. So this is obviously solid proof that red is green (except on those sides where yellow is orange) and that the Borg reach.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[EmperorTiberius]

What "what"? There's no episode where LaForge would have replicated 500 Rubik's cubes and taken the ship out of warp. So this is obviously solid proof that red is green (except on those sides where yellow is orange) and that the Borg reach.

Timo Saloniemi

They are not actual Rubik's cubes, just cubes that looked like them, it was tongue in cheek.

The point is, for LaForge to produce 500 little cubes, he has to take the ship out of warp for two hours, indicating that replicators consume massive amounts of power.

 

[Timo]

...Umm, what episode is that?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Pauln6]

What "what"? There's no episode where LaForge would have replicated 500 Rubik's cubes and taken the ship out of warp. So this is obviously solid proof that red is green (except on those sides where yellow is orange) and that the Borg reach.

Timo Saloniemi

They are not actual Rubik's cubes, just cubes that looked like them, it was tongue in cheek.

The point is, for LaForge to produce 500 little cubes, he has to take the ship out of warp for two hours, indicating that replicators consume massive amounts of power.

In the Game doesn't the entire crew (over 1000) get nobbled by replicated devices with no negative consequences to the ship's power? Maybe this is one of those speed of plot issues? A Q did it?

 

[EmperorTiberius]

What "what"? There's no episode where LaForge would have replicated 500 Rubik's cubes and taken the ship out of warp. So this is obviously solid proof that red is green (except on those sides where yellow is orange) and that the Borg reach.

Timo Saloniemi

They are not actual Rubik's cubes, just cubes that looked like them, it was tongue in cheek.

The point is, for LaForge to produce 500 little cubes, he has to take the ship out of warp for two hours, indicating that replicators consume massive amounts of power.

In the Game doesn't the entire crew (over 1000) get nobbled by replicated devices with no negative consequences to the ship's power? Maybe this is one of those speed of plot issues? A Q did it?

Were they at warp in "The Game"? (But it probably is speed of plot replicating either way).

I was earlier referring to "The Child" episode. It's at 1:10

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZzeZtAudlw

 

[Nerdius Maximus]

I know it's not "canon" but in all the books I've ever read it's not something used commonly by civilians.