From:	Mike Loseke <mike@*******.COM>
Subject:	Re: Real-Life Computing ...(OT, obviously)
Date:	Wed, 27 May 1998 11:05:29 -0600

Thus spake Tim Kerby:
>
> On 27 May 98, at 10:58, Paul Gettle wrote:
>
> > >This changes with optical technology. Light travels much faster than
> > >electricity.
> >
> > HUH? I was under the impression that electricity moved at near the
> > speed of light too. I'll grant that it's a tad slower than the 'speed of
> > light in a vacuum' but light traveling through fiber optics is also slower
> > than 'speed of light in a vacuum'. (IIRC, electomagnetics traveling
> > through any medium are impeded ever so slightly, which is why they have to
> > quote the speed 'in a vacuum')
>
> Yes, you are right. The advantages to light over
> electricity are integrity, and interference, not speed.
> Light is not susceptible to EMF or RFI interference, so
> is a more robust transfer medium. Plus, it maintains
> signal integrity over a much greater distance.

I wouldn't say that light isn't susceptible to outside interference with
much confidence right now. It hasn't been used as densely as electrical
transmission lines to find out what kind of gremlins show up in these
kinds of situations. When you start pumping that much light through
gates in dense configurations, who knows what new quantum principle
might be uncovered.

However, I do agree with you as to the higher scalability of light over
electricity. I think that the amount of data, when described in the media
as states (levels of intensity, similar to voltage), is potentially much
higher when using photons rather than electrons.

--
| Even Einstein objected to the idea of
Mike Loseke | wave-function collapse, calling it
mike@*******.com | "spooky action-at-a-distance."