The general computer didn’t exist in 1927. Once it did, yes it was predicted and expected they would get smaller, more powerful, efficient, and common. There was no limitation of physics getting in the way of it.
The artificial computer wasn’t so much a scientific breakthrough as a conceptual one. It didn’t require anything that didn’t already exist.
The quantum computer does exist. And it’s functional principles are built on physics not engineering. It’s a fundamentally different situation.
If I’d be able to ever collect, I’d bet you $10K in an investment account, that in 10 human generations quantum computers still won’t be portable personal devices.
“This” as in a quantum computer, the thing we were discussing. And the physics and engineering is something you don’t know about. For example, you didn’t know about nitrogen vacancy centers that are already theorised to make room-temperature quantum computing possible. On top of that there are many breakthroughs yet to be made that even current experts may not yet know about.
Moore’s law applies to predictions, which is the other thing we were discussing. Moore’s law was indeed an accurate prediction up until recently, but only after the breakthrough was made, like I also mentioned in my previous comment. I never said it applied to quantum computers.
But it seems to me that you’re just going on a hunch. I’ve tried to apply logic, reasoning and sources to no avail, so I think I will just leave it at that.
If it was so predictable, why couldn’t anyone in 1926 have predicted it with accuracy? The point is, they couldn’t and so can’t we.
Also, it’s definitely about engineering issues. In fact, scientists are already working on ways to overcome the major obstacles you named.
The general computer didn’t exist in 1927. Once it did, yes it was predicted and expected they would get smaller, more powerful, efficient, and common. There was no limitation of physics getting in the way of it.
Of course, every increment is predictable after you make the scientific breakthrough. Not before, though.
The artificial computer wasn’t so much a scientific breakthrough as a conceptual one. It didn’t require anything that didn’t already exist.
The quantum computer does exist. And it’s functional principles are built on physics not engineering. It’s a fundamentally different situation.
If I’d be able to ever collect, I’d bet you $10K in an investment account, that in 10 human generations quantum computers still won’t be portable personal devices.
Neither does this. You just don’t know about it yet. And the link I provided you with shows that.
Not true. Electrical currents are physics too. And quantum computers have hardware too.
What are your arguments for this? I’ve shown you that your central argument is already being addressed.
What exactly is this, that I don’t know about?
And how does Moore’s Law apply?
I’m not sure we’re talking about the same thing.
“This” as in a quantum computer, the thing we were discussing. And the physics and engineering is something you don’t know about. For example, you didn’t know about nitrogen vacancy centers that are already theorised to make room-temperature quantum computing possible. On top of that there are many breakthroughs yet to be made that even current experts may not yet know about.
Moore’s law applies to predictions, which is the other thing we were discussing. Moore’s law was indeed an accurate prediction up until recently, but only after the breakthrough was made, like I also mentioned in my previous comment. I never said it applied to quantum computers.
But it seems to me that you’re just going on a hunch. I’ve tried to apply logic, reasoning and sources to no avail, so I think I will just leave it at that.