Photon's in computing? The NEW is coming!

This thread is from enjoying a good read on Kurzweil's web page. Anyone ever hear of Ray K?

Anyway, the item that caught my eye was from a article on evidence suggesting an optical transistor.

Here is the base portion of the article

then i went on the hunt for the pubs and material else where to verify the concept


See this of 07 poland http://przyrbwn.icm.edu.pl/APP/PDF/112/a112z709.pdf

this pub focuses in the The spatial distributions of individual dibenzanthanthrene electronic transition dipole moments in solid Xe was investigated at the single molecule level,


http://www.nano-optics.ethz.ch/publications/walser.pdf

We show that the zero-phonon transitions of single dibenzanthanthrene molecules in this polar matrix can reach their natural linewidth limit at T = 1.4 K. Our X-ray diffraction measurements and direct study of single molecule dipole orientation provide clear evidence for the crystalline nature of MMA at low temperatures.


http://fr.arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0810/0810.4258.pdf

We report on the triggered generation of indistinguishable photons by solid-state single-photon sources in two separate cryogenic laser scanning microscopes. Organic fluorescent molecules were used as emitters and
investigated by means of high resolution laser spectroscopy. Continuous-wave photon correlation measurements on individual molecules proved the isolation of single quantum systems. By using frequency selective pulsed excitation of the molecule and efficient spectral filtering of its emission, we produced triggered Fourier-limited single photons. In a further step, local electric fields were applied to match the emission wavelengths of two different molecules via Stark effect. Identical single photons are indispensible
for the realization of various quantum information processing schemes proposed. The solid-state approach presented here prepares the way towards the integration of multiple bright sources of single photons on a
single chip.



this is new information many can observe to assist in field's of research that require evidence

it seems that by lowing the temp, they can impose a wavelength, that affixes the mass to a set structure and that photon is held coherant

Please i would like to see what others observe of the analogy as well the evidence. No need to debate on the reality of the 'energy upon mass'

what to observe is the evidence and how the understanding can be applied to current educational pursuits and the progress of physics.....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Maybe its just cause Im hamered.

buert


this makes no sense

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

On second though

I misspelled hammered

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

of course it don't to a physicist

evidence rules over physics; get over it!

when the 'community' learns to observe science over beliefs, then the next generations will run over the remaining!



moving this thread was WRONG!

 

While that maybe true, it was the right thing to do.

 

for a troll like you, i understand your opinion

but this is a science forum where knowledge is shared and people grow

all anyone has to do is read your opinions and your additions to the forum to see for themselves.

not only is the thread something of quality but also offers pubs, evidence, the math and the beginnings of a new field in science.

anyone who dislikes it

is a troll!

eg......... what item on the thread do you not comprehend?

why would it be good to discount material EVIDENCE? EVER?

in fact, why would you even consider this move "Good"?

 

Haha, trolling the cesspool?? lol

Anyone who dislikes your threads is a troll? Good one!

I was making an effort to be like you.. shame you couldn't appreciate it

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

it is people like you that maintain the push to discredit reality

if you had so much as a clue of compassion you would be on the mods for even moving or discounting evidence; no matter if i am an idiot or not!

screw me you fool

all i do is offer material

if i wanted vindication i would just publish but i am not doing this for me

and any who wish to stop the progression are JUST TROLLS>

 

Sorry, I don't roll that way.

 

you do nothing for anything or anyone; no matter which way you roll, troll!

again, all anyone has to do is read your posts!

you are one of the reasons why so much doubt remains against me.

You too weak to address in science so you post all day long about my good looks and awesome writting skills.

You a troll Enmos, plain and simple.

This site has gone to the shits because of the moderating not capable of using integrity and maintaining the rules that trolling must be stopped for the good of articulation.

 

Ah no. The ONLY reason is because you're semi-literate crank.

This site has gone to the shits because it still lets cranks such as yourself post.

 

my other favorite troll

can you post one line that contradicts the EVIDENCE Of this thread?

and that is coming from a duck who has never ONCE been able to back up a damn thing since you came here

in contrast; see this thread to find, most everything i ever wrote is consistant and always has been and why this kind of thread is moved; because the material evidence is NEW and will offer too many the ability to question much of what you and this who site of moderations can handle.

but has anyone offered me a mod job to assist in helping others learn?

and be certain, i would mod-up you and enmos to a point you either add to threads with substance or i would shut you 2 trolls down in a minute!

 

Evidence of the thread?
You post some links, you splurge some badly-written comments...

You're looking in that mirror again.
Since I came here?
I predate you by quite a bit.

Including the mis-spellings and lousy grammar.

New?
Where the hell DO you hide yourself?

Offer you the position of mod?
That would be one of the biggest disasters ever to befall Sci.

And that would be because you're a dishonest idiot who not only can't take criticism but can't understand it either.

 

so no matter what the authors say of their work it is wrong because i posted it?

is that what you are saying troll?

and as usual, you do not converse on the threads; you attack people for

Including the mis-spellings and lousy grammar.


like a troll

them pubs are within a few months or within a year...................

i will put money on it, you have not read ONE line in any of the pubs, nor observed the article is within 5 days

yes............NEW MATERIAL EVIDENCE!

as folks like you don't read to comprehend, you read to pick on spelling and troll up on any who say anything you DO NOT COMPREHEND

ie..............any can read this post and see the same MO in most every thread you and i come into contact on; (you a troll and add nothing to assist anyone on anything)

i learn every day and like this thread and the posts you share; that the threads, the titles, the conversation, the improvement of material knowledge is not what you are here for.

the material on this thread is NEW and you did not even comprehend that!

i say the moderation on this site is REAL BAD and you are an example of why my opinion represents that.

 

Oh you missed a bit again.
No, I'm saying that 1) it's not that new and B) you offered no new perspective.
All you effectively did was cut and paste and add "wow".

Except that I am addressing the thread, that's what the bit above is.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Because I care about educational standards.

You lose, hand the money over.
I keep up.
I simply don't feel the need to shout HEY GUYS LOOK WHAT I READ!

Yep, EXACTLY the same MO, you post something, make no actual contribution and the complain about trolls while claiming you're here to educate and help and NEVER ONCE back up your rubbish.

I find myself very busy correcting falsehoods, thanks.

Wrong again.
First from 2007, second from this year and third undated. But relatively old news conceptually.

I agree with you 100% on that.
Your opinion is an excellent representation of all that is bad about this site.

 

so what did the OP thread and publications share to you?

that perhaps the electronic method of computing may change to a 'photon' based recording of memory?

that energy can be held "upon mass"...........?

what is so OLD that this thread and the science behind it is so WRONG that is should have been moved?

What did i do, that maintains your opinion to be so biased against me personally, rather than just addressing the scientist and their work?

no one writes perfect sentences, so that aint it!

Is it because i know the ToE and will not publish?

does that piss you off for a man to not care about chasing the buck?

 

Nothing new.

Specious bullshit.

As I said in your complaint thread: the OP contravenes sub-forum rules.

I'm just helping you improve your English. It must be hard for posting in an unfamiliar language.

Oh you're far too funny.
You don't know the ToE and you never will.

And now you're resorting to assumptions: one that I'm pissed off and two that I give a shit about money.

 

a lie!

i posted it, directly following the rules.

it was moved because it contravenes your knowledge

just like your crap comment at 'energy upon mass'

you do not comprehend it but bohrs "quantum jump' is sharing the exact same thing (the error is the moderations comprehension not the breaking of forum rules)

now any can see why i can you a bonafide TROLL

YOU just WILL NOT just square up when you are wrong and will BS all day long to maintain your position

and to top it off, you will whine when you don't get your way


eg.... i said 'energy upon mass' and you claim BS but have nothing to back it up with.

 

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=94135

Lies: you gave one or two sentences and a lot of directly cut and pasted material.
So you're wrong again.

Balls.

Er, by forum rules since YOU made the initial statement YOU are supposed to back it up.

 

and there it is

show me in this thread were any of that was broken.

again, you have zero integrity

read the rule above and then find, i offered the evidence, the links and the short summary

you just don't like what it said and no other reason

and why the publications

i said i read and article that was interesting

so before just posting the article i found 3 sources from different folks to support the basis in its general application

again; this kind of post you just shared is why your depth, integrity and capacity within science is no better than the worst of trolls!

you just do not read with any integrity