When are we ever gonna get the high-res photographs of the atomic nuclei or subatomic particles ?
Tomorrow
>>8175898
>photographs
semantics aside, never, because those things don't exist at high resolution.
>>8175898
Based on your picture 2070-2080ish given an average rate
>>8175913
kek, quality post
>>8175913
You're forgetting that technology is also advancing exponentially.
>>8175919
And your forgetting limitations to physics. Circuits cant get smaller as a negative exponent, there are limits.
Your all wrong
>>8176041
there might be new methods developed to observe particles tho.
ur'e wrong
>>8176044
And if my auntie had balls shed be my uncle.
We are stuck with what we have for now hence why we keep doubling up cpu's instead of making them faster. As yet no feasible useful alternative exists hence limits exist. Your still wrong.
>>8176049
quantum mechanics
ure dead wrong
>>8176049
not if she identified as female
>>8176051
i agree with you @ new physics could happen, but quantum mechanics doesn't give general purpose computing, it's suited to special tasks. the best we can hope for right now is a fucking dedicated crypto-card in 30 years.
>>8176051
>Muh quantum physics
It's not a cure all be all.
>2016 needing a picture of a reallity instead of a working abstract model.
>>8176041
google photonic transistors and optical circuits, the future is now.
>>8175898
never because thats not how photographs work
>>8177070
optical computing is still struggling to be in micro range and far far far away from nano range
>>8175898
Is this really an atomic nucleus or the nucleus of a cell?
>>8178819
its the atomic nuclei. we had much better view of cells for a long time
>>8175919
This. We're gonna be seeing them a whole lot sooner.
>>8175919
>is
You mean "was". Tech is no longer advancing as fast.
High resolution of molecular interaction of a single molecule: http://phys.org/news/2013-05-first-ever-high-resolution-images-molecule-reforms.html
