[e2e] Collaboration on Future Internet Architectures
David P. Reed
dpreed at reed.com
Fri May 4 16:48:40 PDT 2007
Lachlan Andrew wrote:
>
> True, but if we ignore noise that is independent between receivers, I
> doubt that N (and hence S) would be big enough to do much
> cooking-with-narrowband. However, I don't have figures, and would be
> happy to be proved wrong :)
Depends on the system architecture. Today's radio designs certainly
have no ability to scale their power down as the density goes up.
>
> As an aside, it would be interesting to see if there are further
> physical limits imposed by the need to have super-cooled receivers
> near our hot transmitters; could the shielding intrinsically interfere
> with the radiation patters or something? Maxwell's daemon comes to
> mind...
>
>
I completely agree that this is an intersting direction. As a hobby,
I've been wondering if the "reversible computing" or "conservative
logic" concepts can be applied sensibly to communications. The minimum
energy needed to communicate one bit of information from one point in a
thermodynamic system to another with perfect reliability would seem to
be a simple thermodynamic problem to solve. There is no obvious reason
why spatial separation should be a bound... Bennet/Landauer tell us
what the minimum energy to destroy a bit of information during a
computation must be, and suggest that that is the only essential energy
that must be expended in a computation. And there is a standard
cionjecture/result from quantum gravity that suggests that the total
amount of information within a bounded region of space is proportional
to the surface area of that space (thus a fractal surface can enclose
more information than a tight convex one).
More information about the end2end-interest
mailing list