Talk:Computronium/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Computronium. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Early 2004 version
Note: The following comments, up until the horizontal rule, refer to a version of this article that has since been deleted.
Is this as nonsensical as it looks? FZ 21:08, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Nonsensical enough to have it put on VFD. It is probably a spawn of nanotechnology philosophy, but this is so badly written that it cannot be salvaged. JFW | T@lk 21:38, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Apparently it's some relation to transhumanist theory, but I'm not terribly familiar with it. FZ 21:57, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Late 2004 version
computronium?????????? I thought it was called earth:) [hitchhiker's guide] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.65.196.124 (talk • contribs) on 21:26, 6 January 2005.
February 2005 rewrite
New version of the article, with some material from the old, is half-written. Emphasis is on various implementations of computronium and the theoretical limits both of these implementations and of arbitrary computation devices. Please let me know (preferably here) if I've missed any important types. I've covered conventional, nanotech, picotech, and (in the limits section) planck-tech. --Christopher Thomas 21:43, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page needs information on the gamma ray data storage device thought experiment, in the "limits" section, as it gave another way of building a device that stored the maximum possible amount of information in a given volume of space. --Christopher Thomas 06:43, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Practicality
I have re-inserted the section questioning the practicality of some of these things. An anonymous user deleted it, and I would like to see some discussion (with weight towards users who have been here some months, and who have several hundred edits) about the talk of the practicality of these theories being removed. Mr. Know-It-All 03:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Energy density
"For example, vastly more energy flows through a star than through a worm, but the concentration of energy is greater for a worm than for a star - roughly 10,000 ergs per second per gram for a worm versus 2 ergs per second per gram for a typical star."
http://www.grailwerk.com/docs/bostonglobe9.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.189.75.148 (talk • contribs) on 19:41, 23 December 2005.