Half a dozen--about six or so years ago.  A lot of real breakthroughs happened in the late 90's and around the time the Sony PSP came out there were some things developed that really "oomphed" computers.  In the past five years or so we've had several other things come along with the same or more potential.

Metamaterials are natural materials in combinations that don't occur in nature.  So you want titanium with a carbon fiber molecularly bonded to it--that would be a metamaterial.  Up until a few years ago there were very few metamaterials we could make and almost none of them were practical for any use or production.

In the past few years using lasers primarily but also some chemical processes, we've been able to make materials that we theorized might be possible but previously had no way to know how to actually make. 

Here's some examples:

http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-01-breakthrough-superlens-cheap-simple-lens.html

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/32464

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/42043

http://www.physorg.com/news80488753.html

It's the increase in computational power that has let us start breaking through from theory to experiment in these things.  The medical field has had a similar revolution with deciphering chemical and electrical processes in the body and mapping out and modeling genes, proteins and molecular compounds that can be created synthetically but don't exist naturally.

All of these things are due to cheaper, more powerful computers.  A network of high end desktop pc's today can out perform and old Cray supercomputer computationally.

My uncle years back was assistant editor at the state capitol paper in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.  They had a basement of a downtown highrise filled with state-of-the-art mainframes.  They took up about the size of a swimming pool, cost $15 million dollars and were connected to "smart" terminals (basically what we call desktops now).

Playing the text-based game Zork on one terminal would bog down the entire network--I know because I had an angry editor throw me off more times than I can count when my uncle would sneak me in at night.

So a university can have a supercomputer or a parallel pc network but it costs a lot of cash and an entire university or research facility will be standing in line from each department wanting to run detailed computations that take months or even years to finish.

A quantum computer might do every departments computations in 30 seconds and could handle scales of queries that are beyond what a computer today is even capable of processing with existing software and hardware.

I'd have to do some research to show real-time scales on how much more powerful processors have become over time.  Sounds like a job for a detail-centric Sith lord.

Here's a small teaser and this (no pictures here sorry).

"Teaser", not "research" (I gotta real life too ya know). Sorry for the teeny graph and dated stats--they are just good general info to get someone started and were grabbed by a quick search.  There are plenty of facts out there to read on--you can take years reading all the detail you want.

It was changes in computer architecture--the actual design and function--that brought these big increases--and the same thing is happening now with multiple core gpus working in tandem with multiple core cpus, new smaller and more electrically efficient processors, etc., etc.

The US is currently building the world's fastest computer and it dwarfs anything that came before it in capability.  Even that will pale in  comparison though to working networks of functional quantum computers--and by "pale"--I mean, "seem like a joke".

We right now are at the point of almost being able to map the complete range of human emotion with facial expression alone--regardless of race, nationality or gender.  We can "read" words people are thinking by interpreting brain waves--etc, etc.

If you want a crude analogy of what a quantum computer will be like, go here and play 20 Questions...if you never have you'll be astounded.  20 Questions is a simple program that can run on a small logic board and fit inside a plastic toy that sells for around $10.  Imagine what a quantum supercomputer will be able to do.

For example, I thought, "statue" and 20 Questions got it in 19 guesses--a working quantum computer could make easily trillions of guesses in a a nanosecond.

That "teaser" should have been drawn differently to illustrate the shear difference over time....

 

 

And I think it is even sharper a curve than that.  Its simply incredible.

I'm like working and stuff... I'll have to look at that later. For the moment, I just had to share this:

"A few years ago the wife and I were watching a "Nova" episode about the race between the US and USSR to capture/recruit as many German scientists as possible after WWII. At one point, the narrator said that the allies had finally tracked down Hiesenberg's hiding place and new exactly where he was. At that point I said to my wife that since they were so certian they knew where he was, they had absolutely no idea how fast he was going. She didn't get it."

We really only have parts of quantum computers and the logic is still being developed. At the moment no one is really sure what we have left to develop before we can build one... heck, it might not even be possible to build one. We just don't know.

Request denied!
The thing is that you can't just look at the frequency the processors run at to determine their computing power. To get the picture better, think of a CPU as being an abacus (it really is in alot of ways). So, if you can flip the beads around quickly on the abacus, you can get to the answer faster. This is analogous to increasing the frequency on a processor. But you can also increase the size (number of digits) of the abacus so that it can handle bigger numbers in less operations. computers deal with 'big' numbers all the time. This is analogous to when processors moved from being 32-bit to being 64-bit. Then, you could have a friend come with another abacus to help calculate in parallel. This is what multiple cores has done for computing. Also, alot of operations that used to be done with additional chips on the motherboard, seperate from the processor have now been integrated onto the CPU so as to remove any delays that existed there.

The next steps are:

• Get Graphene into processors. This will re-ignite the gigahertz race (only this time it will be the terahertz race). This is because grahpene conducts so much better than silicon.
• Spintronics. Basically, each electron is now polarized in 1 of 2 directions and this is taken to be an additional bit of information (effectively doubling the information carried, but it still has to be processed seperately).
• Continue to add more cores to the processors until an architecture is found to make a processor function as-if a single core and as-if an arbitrary number of cores, depending on the task needed
• Optics. Nothing is faster than light (earlier conversation aside), so make PCs out of that. plus, theres ways of putting a signal on a particular color of light, and combining that with another signal on a different color (or nearly the whole spectrum). This type of tech is already making its way into switches since the internet uses alot of fiber.

The whole idea of using entanglement for processing is that you dont have to try something 50 million times (what's known as the brute-force method) until you get to the right answer. Basically, you insert a key into door. This key has both no teeth and all possible teeth at the same time. It is a true skeleton key. The door lock checks to see if the correct key is inserted, and it is, but so is a bunch of incorrect keys. The magic part is that the act of checking can be used to destroy those other keys so that only the correct one is left. It's a completely different way getting the answer.

To compare, your AMD k 6 had 8.8 million transistors. Your E8400 (coincidently same as me) has 410 million transistors.

As for 'can it model DNA?', well the answer is yes. But you can do that with a ping-pong ball as well. It's all about the level of detail. The more computing power you have, the more details you can include in a simulation. Such details are only needed in particular situations, but help drive the overall understanding of the phenomena.

[Edit] I Just read that the new Ivy Bridge chips (My planned upgrade) will have 1.4 billion transistors.

Seleuceia,

Yes, it would erase it when read, if done exactly in that fashion. I was talking about how it works in more of a theoretical sense. To engineer something in a practical manner, you often have to do things differently from the simpler theoretical model. So, I admit to some limitations in my discription. However, I do think you have mistaken some parts of spintronics, so let me try to go into more detail...

So in an ordinary CPU, in a theoretical sense, a single electron travels through a wire and enters a transistor. If the transitor is on, it passes through and keeps on going. If it's off, the electron goes to ground.
Now, is this how CPUs are built? no. Voltage is sent through the wire, which is the result of a bunch of electrons flowing in a unified direction (it's a DC circuit). It takes a certain amount of voltage that persists for a certain amount of time to pass through the transistor and to turn it on. The advantage of this is that stray electrons do not interfere and you dont have to deal with quantum effects. In this sense, the electrons are part of a sea, and it takes a certain wave height and length to pass the information along. Future development does aim to 'reduce the sea level' to make circuits smaller and more efficient, and graphene, being a better conductor, should help on this front.

So for spintronic devices, theory has it working like I explained above. Practically... well, spin has to do with magnetism. In a sense, a magnetic field is produced by electrons transferring spin (it's a very confusing property. I honestly wish I knew more about it). So, in a practical device, a voltage of electrons would enter the spin transistor. Normally, the spins are balanced, so you can use some magnetic materials and determine whether there is a 'net spin' being carried, or 'no net spin'. How exactly this is accomplished, I do not know. But the concept is similar to volatges: you send a pulse of electrons with net spin to register a '1', and a pulse with no net spin is a '0'. You don't need to know exactly which way the electrons are 'spun', just that there is a net value. The important part is that you want to reduce the 'size' of the 'pulse' so that you can have more 'pulses' going through the system.

I'll look more into this to see what I can find out, as I dont know much about how this works

From Wikipedia:

Charge carriers (such as electrons) have a property known as spin which is a small quantity of angular momentum intrinsic to the carrier. An electrical current is generally unpolarized (consisting of 50% spin-up and 50% spin-down electrons); a spin polarized current is one with more electrons of either spin. By passing a current through a thick magnetic layer, one can produce a spin-polarized current. If a spin-polarized current is directed into a magnetic layer, angular momentum can be transferred to the layer, changing its orientation. This can be used to excite oscillations or even flip the orientation of the magnet. The effects are usually only seen in nanometer scale devices.

Sinperium, decoherence is still a big problem. Sure, there have been experiments where 'components' of a future Qomputer (TM) have run without this issue, but as far as I am aware, these components are not running continuously and/or outputting to the outside world (which runs the risk of decoherence). Furthermore, these different components are not of designs that can just work together. they are of different technologies. Still, the fundamental principles have been proven. And, as I said, I think we will have Qomputers someday. However, it's still a ways off from being proven possible or even practical.

Right now, even if we could combine all the components, a Qomputer would not be any better than a regular computer, because we can't get enough qubits to compete. And, as you increase the number of qubits, you increase the risk of decoherence. So, it stands to reason that it might be impossible to make a machine with enough qubits that it can actually do the amazing things theoretically possible without decoherence spoiling the party. Also, no one knows how to write software for such a machine. There's some logic worked out, but how do you program it, exactly?

Once again though, I do think they are possible.

What bothered me about this statement is that you referred to "each electron", implying that each individual electron carries with it information, which is simply not the case...

Again, sending a single electron one at a time is very VERY different than sending a DC current, and the two should not be thought of as analogous...the physical and mathematical treatment of individual electrons is much different than the treatment of a large flow of electrons...to say that one electron is the theoretical model while a group of electrons is the practical model simply is a fallacy...a current of many electrons is both the theoretical and practical model...

I would just stick with this part of your statement about transistors depending on "high" or "low" signals...transistors and spintronics (as you have stated in your most recent post) both depend on a current of electrons, not individual electrons...

Clearly you understand the basic premise of spintronics, and if it seems like I'm being an ass I'm sorry...it's just that since we are discussing quantum computing, distinguishing between an individual particle and a flux of particles is very important...using the states of individual electrons (or particles) to store or transfer information is not spintronics and I just wanted some clarification from your "first" post...

Anyway...whether I have a transistor measuring "high"/"low" signals or a magnetic layer measuring net spin/zero spin, I still have a binary system...I'm not particularly familiar with the design of all electronics, but it would seem that in either case, I'm still transmitting the same amount of information per pulse...so:

I'm assuming this means then that they are moving towards devices with a transistor and magnetic reader "in series", so to speak...I'm guessing that the transistor first detects "high" signals and then the magnetic reader obtains further information by determining the existence of a net spin, yes?  

IIRC, newer hard drive readers measure net spin instead of a high/low signal (as opposed to measuring both at the same time), so the information per pulse is still the same...perhaps the reason why they don't use both methods at once in circutiry has to do with the materials being used...maybe silicon just doesn't mesh well with spintronics?

It's not exactly new technology anymore so if "doubling" the information per pulse were viable I would think that it would have already been implemented...I'm guessing there is a practical limitation (probably material related) preventing such implementation...

You know Sinperium... I don't see how you can stay optimistic about the scientific future. Obviously doubt is factor of utmost importance in Science, so there will always be some pessimism, but I'm talking about above and beyond that.

I just ran into a friend I haven't seen in a long time. While I wouldn't say she's a scientific genius by a long-shot-behind-the-back-left-handed, I think she's at least average-ish.

She tells me "I heard that the Earth is closest to the Sun than it has been in blahblah* years and that because of it, everyone weighs 10 pounds heavier right now." (*= some number I have failed to remember. kind of forgot to pay attention to that part because I was so distracted by the rest of the sentence). "No." I say, "While it is true that during the winter we are closer to the Sun than the rest of the year, that happens every year. Furthermore, the affect of the Sun is so small that it wouldn't have that big of an effect. Now, I can't say for whether we're any closer this year compared to every other year, but that doesn't mean-" "I saw a video on the internet of someone standing a broom straight up." "..." "Right now, you can take a broom and stand it on end because of this. And you weigh 10 pounds heavier"

I... didn't know where to start with all that. And this was a passing comment as I was leaving. Like, WTF is wrong with people?! YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS STUFF IS FALSE IN ORDER TO BE ALLOWED INTO 5th GRADE.

I appreciate what you are saying, and the motivational attempt as well.

My viewpoint though has always been that Science should be done objectively. You say "Let's see what happens", and not "How can we make this?". That's an engineer's job. The engineer uses the work of scientists to guide him. If he doesn't he's really an Alchemist; using superstitions to make things happen.

Obviously, engineers do have to do some experiments. For example, a new bridge is load tested to make sure it can hold more weight than what it is rated to hold; this is done because the specific bridge design with the specific materials in the specific environment was never tested before, even though each individual aspect might/should have been tested separately. To be clear, if some engineer decided to build a bridge of record length out of Jello... that's Alchemy. The proper way to approach something like that is to have the structural strength of Jello tested and test the building design as a function of material strength and resilience.

The theorists job is to take the new experiments and see if they can predict the outcomes of future experiments. In this way, the engineers can focus in on obtaining specific results from things.

 

Anyways, I think my original point was that people are idiots and the disease is spreading. 'Hope' doesn't make room-temperature superconducters possible, but many people working on the problem might. In order for civilization to progress, we need more people to understand the basic ideas and results of science and less people to object (not because objections are bad, but because they just refuse to see reason).

I disagree. I like physics because it's interesting. I like the way subtle little details combine to create something counterintuitive. It's fun to play with these ideas and see what comes out. I think that's why most physicists are physicists. Not because they're inspired to make the equation that will allow someone to make a teleporter or to build a device to test  whether a particular kind of dark matter is out there.

What you're thinking of is more of an inventor. That requires vision and inspiration.

Sinperium, since you're a Sci-fi guy, have you ever seen the movie Primer? Good film. The guys there were not trying to build a specific thing so much. I mean, I'm sure they had a goal to their design, but they were just building for the fun of it. Along the way, they discovered something (I'm not going to go into it if you haven't seen it. Half the fun of seeing it is figuring out what the heck is going on) and it led to new things to 'play' with, new discoveries, and they learned they could do more.

Obviously, that was a movie, so there's a lot there that I would not advocate adopting for the scientific community.

And the idiot that believes that is the solution has just multiplied the problem. Now we're getting idiots^2

As for the dark matter topic, they've been able to map dark matter distributions for awhile. Just a bit of dark matter... Primer.... : The reason Dark matter is thought to exist is because if you look at all the stuff in a galaxy and observe the way it moves/spins, the math doesn't jive. There has to be a lot more mass there that we just cant see.

Okay, so now that is out of the way. The thing is that just because we don't know what it is doesn't mean it's not obeying the 'universal' laws of physics (poking fun at you a bit. what's with the 'universal'?). So, the reason we know it is there is due to gravity, and gravity bends space; therefore, concentrations of dark matter will bend space. So, by measuring the bent light from these galaxies, you can geometrically work out where the dark matter is and roughly how much is there.

Things learned from this technique:

• Practically every galaxy has a dark matter 'halo'. 
• The amount of Dark matter a galaxy has is proportional to the size of it's supermassive black hole, roughly speaking (I could have it backwards; the size of the black hole may dictate the amount of dark matter, but I'm speaking of proportions).
• There seem to be different kinds of dark matter: the kind that interacts with it self ('hot' dark matter), and the kind that doesn't ('cold' dark matter)
• Simply modifying the current gravity theory (aka MOND) can't account for the observations on it's own. There is something there bending the light.
• Due to the above black hole/dark matter relationship and recent galactic evolution models necessitating supermassive black holes, it's now thought that there was dark matter early in the universe which accelerated the clumping of matter into galaxies and assisting in the creation of the supermassive blackhole. With out both dark matter and a supermassive black hole, it is very difficult to build a galaxy.
• If you tell an Astronomer that something exists which can't be seen, they will turn their telescopes to an empty region of space and show it to you