Computers Faster Only for 75 More Years? Physicists determine nature's limit to making faster processors

October 14, 2009 By Lauren Schenkman, Inside Science
Computers Faster Only for 75 More Years? Physicists determine nature's limit to making faster processors

Enlarge

Image credit: ZyMOS

With the speed of computers so regularly seeing dramatic increases in their processing speed, it seems that it shouldn't be too long before the machines become infinitely fast -- except they can't.

A pair of physicists has shown that computers have a speed limit as unbreakable as the speed of light. If processors continue to accelerate as they have in the past, we'll hit the wall of faster processing in less than a century.

Intel co-founder Gordon Moore predicted 40 years ago that manufacturers could double computing speed every two years or so by cramming ever-tinier on a chip. His prediction became known as Moore's Law, and it has held true throughout the evolution of computers -- the fastest today beats out a ten-year-old competitor by a factor of about 30.

If components are to continue shrinking, physicists must eventually code bits of information onto ever smaller particles. Smaller means faster in the microelectronic world, but physicists Lev Levitin and Tommaso Toffoli at Boston University in Massachusetts, have slapped a speed limit on computing, no matter how small the components get.

"If we believe in Moore's laW ... then it would take about 75 to 80 years to achieve this quantum limit," Levitin said.

"No system can overcome that limit. It doesn't depend on the physical nature of the system or how it's implemented, what algorithm you use for computation … any choice of hardware and software," Levitin said. "This bound poses an absolute law of nature, just like the speed of light."

Scott Aaronson, an assistant professor of and computer science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, thought Levitin's estimate of 75 years extremely optimistic.

Moore's Law, he said, probably won't hold for more than 20 years.

In the early 1980s, Levitin singled out a quantum elementary operation, the most basic task a quantum computer could carry out. In a paper published today in the journal Physical Review Letters, Levitin and Toffoli present an equation for the minimum sliver of time it takes for this elementary operation to occur. This establishes the speed limit for all possible computers.

Using their equation, Levitin and Toffoli calculated that, for every unit of energy, a perfect quantum computer spits out ten quadrillion more operations each second than today's fastest processors.

"It's very important to try to establish a fundamental limit -- how far we can go using these resources," Levitin explained.

The physicists pointed out that technological barriers might slow down Moore's law as we approach this limit. Quantum computers, unlike electrical ones, can't handle "noise" -- a kink in a wire or a change in temperature can cause havoc. Overcoming this weakness to make a reality will take time and more research.

As computer components are packed tighter and tighter together, companies are finding that the newer processors are getting hotter sooner than they are getting faster. Hence the recent trend in duo and quad-core processing; rather than build faster processors, manufacturers place them in tandem to keep the heat levels tolerable while computing
speeds shoot up. Scientists who need to churn through vast numbers of calculations might one day turn to superconducting computers cooled to drastically frigid temperatures. But even with these clever tactics, Levitin and Toffoli said, there's no getting past the fundamental speed limit.

Aaronson called it beautiful that such a limit exists.

"From a theorist's perspective, it's good to know that fundamental limits are there, sort of an absolute ceiling," he said. "You may say it's disappointing that we can't build infinitely fast computers, but as a picture of the world, if you have a theory of physics allows for
infinitely fast computation, there could be a problem with that theory."

© Inside Science News Service, Used with permission.
ISNS

4.3 /5 (27 votes)  

Filter


Move the slider to adjust rank threshold, so that you can hide some of the comments.


Display comments: newest first

SmartK8
Oct 14, 2009

Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
Well, there's always a physical size, or parallel number of the CPUs (or whatever it will be called later on), or even just more computers alone. But I don't personally believe, that this limit is it. Anyway, 40 times doubling the current performance, it's unimaginable! I really wonder what kind of software it will be running; if any. Somehow, just based on this sheer number, I take Kurzweil more seriously from now on.
El_Nose
Oct 14, 2009

Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
I am really upset that the proposed limit is not stated.
fuzz54
Oct 14, 2009

Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Speed is great. Looks like computers will be somewhere between a billion and 100 billion times faster before we hit the wall. But we should be designing smarter, not necessarily faster. Look at what the human brain does with much less wattage. If computers really do get a billion times faster then we are looking at a seriously huge power bill.
denfire
Oct 14, 2009

Rank: not rated yet
ummm.... this would be an awesome website if it were a tad bit more technical.... i agree with the NOSE... can i get a speed limit here... or a formula!
nkalanaga
Oct 14, 2009

Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
"a perfect quantum computer spits out ten quadrillion more operations each second than today's fastest processors."

Now, all one needs is the speed of today's fastest processor. Parallel processors don't count, only individual, one instruction at a time, processors.
gwrede
Oct 14, 2009

Rank: 5 / 5 (12)
"Anyway, 40 times doubling the current performance, it's unimaginable!" Yes. 25 years ago I was using a Kaypro-II, 0.002GHz 8-bit CPU, 0.000064 Gigs of RAM, and no hard drive. Today my portable HD takes a Terabyte of data. That's enough to store the name, address and phone number of every human being on earth.

The funny thing is, that old Kaypro did office tasks just as fast as today's Excel and Word. I also have a 10-year old laptop with Windows-98 and Office-97. I actually prefer writing and calculating with it, since it is more responsive and feels faster than today's Win+Office on the latest laptops.

40 times doubling the performance would be unimaginable, yes. But I bet that the Windows and Office of the day will quite effortlessly waste enough horse power to make work even slower than today.
jselin
Oct 14, 2009

Rank: 4.7 / 5 (6)
40 times doubling the performance would be unimaginable, yes. But I bet that the Windows and Office of the day will quite effortlessly waste enough horse power to make work even slower than today.


That stupid paperclip will probably be churning away rewriting your paper for you "Did you mean to say (40 pages rewritten)? Your intended audience will find my version 47% more understandable..."
vladik
Oct 14, 2009

Rank: 4.8 / 5 (4)

The funny thing is, that old Kaypro did office tasks just as fast as today's Excel and Word.


Totally agree, developers were constrained by 2-3MHZ 8 bit CPUs + tiny amount of RAM, and the algorithms, written in pure assembler, had absolutely magic optimizations. Apply that kind of effort to current software, and you'll get desired 40 times gain in speed with the same hardware.
dirk_bruere
Oct 14, 2009

Rank: not rated yet
Don't any of these researchers do any reading? There is a large bulk of literature on the limits to computing. Try this for starters:
http://ftp.nada.k...Brains2/
USPorcupine
Oct 14, 2009

Rank: 2.1 / 5 (8)
There is no such thing as a speed limit in the computer world. It just goes to show how some of our scientists are shortsighted. We're using binary right now, which means the code has to go in order 100110100110010110 etc. All we have to do is use the color spectrum instead of electricity (which involves positive/negative charges ..0 or 1 ). If we use the color spectrum instead of electricity, instead of sending 001111111011001
011011100110000111010101001100001111001010101100 to the processor for example, we would just send the shade of green in one blip. There is a lot of room for speed. And there is a lot of other tricks we can use in the computer world.
So once again, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A SPEED LIMIT.
dirk_bruere
Oct 14, 2009

Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Limits to computing in terms of energy for non-reversible computation is about 10^21 bit change operations per Watt at room temp. For 1kg of matter compressed into a Black Hole the lifetime would be around 10^-19 s, during which 10^31 operations can be performed on 10^16 bits. Residual energy dissipation would be about 40 megatonne equivalent.
hooloovoo
Oct 14, 2009

Rank: 3.3 / 5 (7)
The funny thing is, that old Kaypro did office tasks just as fast as today's Excel and Word.


Can your old machine convert a movie between HD video formats in a matter of minutes (or at all)? Can it sort through and analyze data coming in at the rate of GB/s? Can it perform any of the functions that modern computers do OTHER than office tasks?

I thought not. You're seriously oversimplifying things, and I think you know it.
chg9389
Oct 14, 2009

Rank: 5 / 5 (8)
Fortunately, Microsoft is working on this problem and is frantically researching ways to keep Windows bloated enough to absorb whatever new computing power becomes available!
Yogaman
Oct 14, 2009

Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Since the cycle-frugal days of 8080's, we've found plenty of ways to spend Moore's bounty.

The old office tasks were much more constrained in terms of touchy-feely things like styles, colors, graphics and layout, productivity things like accessing data from other documents over (inter-) networks, etc. And dot-matrix printing was expensive, slow and ugly.

Now we have significant aesthetic and cost improvements: [Ooh, Aero! Pretty, pretty! Me want! Me want check my Facebook friends in separate tab during this boring YouTube video.]

But I think there are several orders of magnitude left before human demand for compute cycles is satiated.

[Now that we've past Uncanny Valley, me want faster WiMAX to experience 3D-HD roboporn with fully interactive brain implants & bodysuit, in back seat while robot drives.]

Maybe by that time, other, more autonomous robots will be smart enough to put us out of our misery.
trantor
Oct 15, 2009

Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
alternatively, you can just build huge quantum computers and place them in hyperspace, leaving them connected to small input/output in our universe. That way, there is no speed limit, since you can build BIGGER.

At least that was what Isaac Asimov did with the Multivac at his short story THE LAST QUESTION.
Bob_Kob
Oct 15, 2009

Rank: not rated yet
Hyperspace solves every problem. I don't understand why we don't drop what were doing and try to get hyperspace a reality asap :)
Paradox
Oct 15, 2009

Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Fortunately, Microsoft is working on this problem and is frantically researching ways to keep Windows bloated enough to absorb whatever new computing power becomes available!


HaHaHaha! That's Funny!

Seriously though, this article is kind of like the "Man will never fly" statement. Someone will figure out a way around that limit. No question about it in my mind.
Bob_Kob
Oct 15, 2009

Rank: not rated yet
Well in my mind there is no way around the speed of light, so the time taken for signals to reach other parts of the chip or chips is the limiting factor.
Mister_Sinister
Oct 15, 2009

Rank: 1.3 / 5 (3)
Im not sure if you people are aware, but NOTHING goes faster than light - had that happened all our physics would be wrong, which is not since we managed so much with its correct predictions. Porcupine suggested a photonics method - but that's not faster than light, because that is light itself. No useful information can travel faster than light - not even time can travel faster or slower than light since light is its metronome. Remember the lenght of 1 second is 10^8 meters - the speed of ligth in one second.
CreepyD
Oct 15, 2009

Rank: 4 / 5 (1)
But we can transfer the same data more efficiently.
2 Computers working at the speed of light. 1 using binary and using a more efficient form of communication. The binary one will be much much slower. It's not just about pure speed.
Bob_Kob
Oct 15, 2009

Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
The article clearly stated even using the most efficient method possible, in the end you are still sending packets of data which take time to travel.
Royale
Oct 15, 2009

Rank: not rated yet
@trantor
I really like the Asimov reference. Hopefully we can get there in my lifetime! (Although I doubt it. I think we'll end up in a 'state of the art & stone age' world at the same time, due to war, ultimately driven by religious bickering). Getting to the level you suggest would be amazing though. Asimov could have been right. Perhaps the big bang came about through science becoming ALMOST infinite in its processing capabilities.
3432682
Oct 15, 2009

Rank: not rated yet
The future will be FPGA - field programmable gate array - instead of computers which reset their CPUs on every cycle. FPGA do cycles, but instead of changing the core on every cycle, the computation flows through a series of circuits, finding answers in single cycles instead of thousands. The limits will be the size of the FPGA circuits, and the handling of I/O.
Damon_Hastings
Oct 16, 2009

Rank: not rated yet
The limit in this article only applies to a single processor. As this limit is approached, the competition is also on to use fewer and fewer particles per processor, connect all those processors in more and more seamless ways, and dissipate heat efficiently. We might get these processors down to where they're smaller than a virus and can be packed together tighter than a drum. Then we just have to make the whole system the size of a galaxy (gravitational collapse notwithstanding). And then ask it to find a way to ring up God. :-)
zilog4082
Oct 16, 2009

Rank: not rated yet
@gwrede
""Anyway, 40 times doubling the current performance, it's unimaginable!" Yes. 25 years ago I was using a Kaypro-II, 0.002GHz 8-bit CPU, 0.000064 Gigs of RAM, and no hard drive."

You faced just 12 times doubling that performance, it is around us now.

40 times doubling that (25 years old) performance would be 2.2 EHz (ExaHertz or 2199023255 GHz). EM radiation wavelength at that (2.2 EHz) frequency is less then 0.14 nm. To compensate for those 25 years today, multiply this figure by 4096.

2^35 or 2^40 is such improvement that we never faced it since begining of computing.
nxtr
Oct 16, 2009

Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
What the "geniuses" who always love to predict the future fail to take into consideration is that the process of making a processor faster and smaller is not limited to their tunnel-vision concepts of processors.

By using trinary or quaternary bits in 3D DNA style arrangements, you would increase the processing power by a cubic factor, and reduce its size the same amount.

Its like someone in the 20's saying that waterships will never exceed 50-60 KPH because of cavitation around the propellor. Jet propulsion? Oh, gee I guess they didn't think of that when they confidently made their decree. Why? Because propellors were all they knew. Jet propulsion wasn't INVENTED yet.

Why must these people opine so convincingly when their thought processes are trapped in 2009. Tragic.
gwrede
Oct 17, 2009

Rank: not rated yet
@zilog4082
2^35 or 2^40 is such improvement that we never faced it since begining of computing

True. But consider this: when i was in elementary school (early sixties), we didn't have calculators, so to do a floating point multiplication on pencil and paper (with, say, a dozen digits of precision) took some three minutes, for non-engineers. Today my desktop does 7Gflops, which is a 2^40 improvement in speed!

At that time we could have said that "we never faced it since begining of computing", too. After all, never before had so many children had the ability to do that kind of arithmetic.

Nobody thought we'd see a 2^40 improvement in 40 years.

Imagine what seti@home &co could do another 40 years from now! All the worlds "unimaginable" hardware combined to solve some amazing task! (But, please, not "does God exist?")
MorituriMax
Oct 17, 2009

Rank: not rated yet
Not to be simplistic, but don't all these limits described above presuppose that we are using and making the future computers in the same way we do now?

Sure, sailing ships can't and never will be able to reach orbit no matter how many masts we build into them. But rocket ships can.

Todays computers = sailing ships
Tommorrows computers = ?.
Bob_Kob
Oct 18, 2009

Rank: not rated yet
But you guys dont understand, there is a limit! Perhaps not the same as in this article but the speed of light is something that cannot be broken.

Sure we can have unlimited powerful computers that are parallel, but they won't be fast. Their speed is limited.
woodland_spirit
Oct 19, 2009

Rank: not rated yet
I know what software it will be using in 75 years time, Gnome Version 50. Guess what, in 80 years time it will be as sluggish as hell, then what will we do?
Paradox
Oct 21, 2009

Rank: not rated yet
Well in my mind there is no way around the speed of light, so the time taken for signals to reach other parts of the chip or chips is the limiting factor.

Im not sure if you people are aware, but NOTHING goes faster than light - had that happened all our physics would be wrong, which is not since we managed so much with its correct predictions. Porcupine suggested a photonics method - but that's not faster than light, because that is light itself. No useful information can travel faster than light - not even time can travel faster or slower than light since light is its metronome. Remember the lenght of 1 second is 10^8 meters - the speed of ligth in one second.


If you actually read the article you will see that it is about Moores law, and not necessarily about the speed of light.
Mr_Man
Oct 22, 2009

Rank: not rated yet
I am really upset that the proposed limit is not stated.


I was thinking the same thing after reading the article. It is like having a movie where there the conflict in the story has been edited out...
Rank 4.3 /5 (27 votes)
Related Stories
Relevant PhysicsForums posts

More news stories

Explained: Sigma

It's a question that arises with virtually every major new finding in science or medicine: What makes a result reliable enough to be taken seriously? The answer has to do with statistical significance -- but ...

Physics / General Physics

created Feb 09, 2012 | popularity 5 / 5 (20) | comments 76

Quantum physicist explains $100K offer for proof scaled-up quantum computing is impossible

(PhysOrg.com) -- MIT researcher Scott Aaronson has certainly riled the physics community with his offer this past Friday, of $100,000 to anyone who can prove that scaled-up quantum computing is impossible. ...

Physics / Quantum Physics

created Feb 08, 2012 | popularity 4.3 / 5 (14) | comments 36 | with audio podcast weblog

Diamond light, brighter than the sun

It’s the size of five football pitches and generates light 10 billion times brighter than the sun. As the Diamond Light Source celebrates its tenth anniversary this year, Penny Bailey visits one of the ...

Physics / General Physics

created Feb 07, 2012 | popularity 4.4 / 5 (9) | comments 18 | with audio podcast

Physicists 'record' magnetic breakthrough

An international team of scientists has demonstrated a revolutionary new way of magnetic recording which will allow information to be processed hundreds of times faster than by current hard drive technology.

Physics / General Physics

created Feb 07, 2012 | popularity 4.6 / 5 (43) | comments 14 | with audio podcast

Hints of the Higgs - papers are submitted

Back in December 2011, the ATLAS and CMS experiments at CERN presented some exciting results that provided tantalising hints of the Higgs boson.

Physics / General Physics

created Feb 08, 2012 | popularity 4.3 / 5 (8) | comments 10


Scientists discover molecular secrets of 2,000-year-old Chinese herbal remedy

For roughly two thousand years, Chinese herbalists have treated Malaria using a root extract, commonly known as Chang Shan, from a type of hydrangea that grows in Tibet and Nepal. More recent studies suggest that halofuginone, ...

New method to examine batteries -- MRI from the inside

There is an ever-increasing need for advanced batteries for portable electronics, such as phones, cameras, and music players, but also to power electric vehicles and to facilitate the distribution and storage of energy derived ...

Google might launch Drive for cloud storage soon

(PhysOrg.com) -- Google's next big move, according to the Wall Street Journal, is a cloud storage service called Drive. Hardly first to the plate, Google is simply catching up to introducing its cloud reposi ...

Lab study raises questions over nano-particle impact

Tests involving chickens have raised questions about the impact on health from engineered nano-particles, the ultra-fine grains commonly used in drugs and processed foods, scientists said on Sunday.

A mitosis mystery solved: How chromosomes align perfectly in a dividing cell

Although the process of mitotic cell division has been studied intensely for more than 50 years, Whitehead Institute researchers have only now solved the mystery of how cells correctly align their chromosomes during symmetric ...

Starve a virus, feed a cure? Findings show how some cells protect themselves against HIV

A protein that protects some of our immune cells from the most common and virulent form of HIV works by starving the virus of the molecular building blocks that it needs to replicate, according to research published online ...