Researchers Create 4nm Transistor With Seven Atoms 120
EmagGeek writes "University researchers have created a transistor by replacing just seven atoms of silicon with phosphorous. The seven-atom transistor has hopeful implications for the future of quantum cryptography, nuclear and weather modeling, and other applications. 'The significance of this achievement is that we are not just moving atoms around or looking at them through a microscope,' says Professor Michelle Simmons, a co-author of a paper on the subject that is being published by Nature Nanotechnology. The paper is entitled 'Spectroscopy of Few-Electron Single-Crystal Silicon Quantum Dots'."
7 Atoms? (Score:3, Funny)
Should've used a VIA C7 instead.
New hardware error? (Score:5, Funny)
Just wait until you get an error message that says:
* * * ATOM NOT PRESENT ERROR * * *
Eat my transistor (Score:5, Funny)
--I forgot my sig.
Re:New hardware error? (Score:4, Funny)
Better than the Wolfcastle error:
At them not present error.
Re:By This Logic... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Interesting (Score:4, Funny)
Re:New hardware error? (Score:5, Funny)
Atom decay detected, insert proton. (Insert, Abort, Cancel)
Re:New hardware error? (Score:4, Funny)
"Are you sure you want to insert a proton?"
(Positive, Cancel)
Re:New hardware error? (Score:5, Funny)
* ATOMIC ERROR: ATOM IS EITHER PRESENT OR NOT PRESENT (I CAN'T TELL, CAN YOU LOOK)
cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat cat vv
Re:Gonna be tough to solder! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:New hardware error? (Score:3, Funny)
What the fuck does that mean?
Re:6 Atom transistor (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Not Holding My Breath (Score:2, Funny)
In macroscopic terms the world is simple. The finer the resolution the more complex the world gets. In nanoscopic terms the world is complicated.
Making chips is considerably harder than making bricks; and yet we do make both.
Our current technology allows us to automate macroscopic processes with high precision. Nanotechnology however is one leading edge technology, and as such the precision certainly isn't there to make a fair comparison to automated macroscopic processes.
Making chips was once leading edge technology, not comparable to making bricks; and yet we made both.
Think of a doctor performing surgery: a large benign tumor in section of fat could be easily removed, while a miniscule brain tumor would probably be one of the most difficult to remove.
Removing a minuscule brain tumor is much harder than amputating a leg; and yet we do both.
That's precisely the point of science and technology. Some guy spends years doing something that was previously impossible. Some other guys try little variants on the same action. And then a guy develops a process of doing the exact same thing but better, faster and cheaper.
Once the action passes through the imposibility barrier, the steps from "breakthough" to "mundane" are well known. We've spent several thousand years walking those steps on each new discovery.
So then, just so I'm clear, leg amputation is just as difficult as brain surgery; bricks are just as hard to make as silicon wafers.
Thanks for clearing all that up. Now that you've enlightened me on now the world works I will fly home after work this evening using nothing but my arms. Because I can walk with my legs.