Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #88473 > unrolled thread

IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc

Contents

  IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-28 00:36 -0400
    [HK01]IBM研發首款0.7nm晶片 指甲大小塞滿1000億電晶體 效能飆升50% "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 00:01 +0800
    Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-28 18:09 +0000
      Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 13:11 +0800
        Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-29 01:39 -0400
          Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-06-29 19:20 +0800
            Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-29 12:57 +0100
            Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-30 05:14 -0400
              Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-06-30 21:51 +0800
                Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-30 12:06 -0400
                  Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-06-30 18:51 +0000
                    Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-06-30 17:58 -0400
                      Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-01 01:15 -0400
                        Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-01 10:15 +0100
                    Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-30 23:51 +0000
                      Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-01 03:16 -0400
                        Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-01 10:05 +0100
                          Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-01 17:43 +0000
                            Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-01 20:23 +0100
                              Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-02 01:57 +0000
                                Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-02 16:48 -0400
                                  Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-02 21:32 +0000
                                    Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-02 18:15 -0400
                                  Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-03 11:03 +0100
                                    Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-04 09:32 -0400
                                      Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-07-04 17:06 +0000
                                        Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-04 19:24 +0200
                                        Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-04 18:20 +0000
                                        Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-04 23:37 -0400
                                      Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-04 19:20 +0100
                                        Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-07-04 20:28 +0000
                                          Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-04 20:47 +0000
                                          Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-05 00:33 +0100
                                        Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-04 20:42 +0000
                                          Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-04 23:51 -0400
                                            Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-05 06:57 +0000
                                            Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-05 13:38 +0200
                                        Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-04 23:45 -0400
                                          Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-05 10:49 +0100
                    Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-01 00:48 -0400
                  Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-30 23:45 +0000
                    Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer.... physics? "quantum"? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 12:24 +0800
                    Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-01 03:13 -0400
                      Re: IBM - New SUB .... quantum mechanics is quantitative philiosphy? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 15:29 +0800
                        Re: IBM - New SUB .... quantum mechanics is quantitative philiosphy? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-01 04:22 -0400
                          Re: IBM - New SUB .... quantum mechanics is quantitative philiosphy? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-07-01 23:41 +0800
                            Re: IBM - New SUB .... quantum mechanics is quantitative philiosphy? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-02 01:56 -0400
                              Re: IBM - New SUB .... quantum mechanics is FLAT? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2026-07-02 14:04 +0800
                                Re: IBM - New SUB .... quantum mechanics is FLAT? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-02 16:50 -0400
                                  Re: IBM - New SUB .... quantum mechanics is FLAT? rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-02 21:26 +0000
                                    Re: IBM - New SUB .... quantum mechanics is FLAT? c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-02 18:11 -0400
                  Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-06-30 22:09 -0400
                    Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-01 03:29 -0400
                      Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-01 10:11 +0100
                    Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-01 10:08 +0100
              Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-30 16:27 +0100
                Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-30 12:18 -0400
                  Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-06-30 17:32 +0100
                    Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-30 23:40 +0000
                      Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-01 02:53 -0400
                      Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-01 10:01 +0100
                    Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-01 00:17 -0400
                  Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-30 23:37 +0000
                    Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-01 02:33 -0400
                Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-06-30 23:28 +0000
                  Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-01 02:04 -0400
                    Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2026-07-01 04:33 -0400
      Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-06-29 01:34 -0400

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#88551

On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 12:06:38 -0400, c186282 wrote:

>    Any better future stuff will have to exploit quantum effects - get
>    more bang for yer nanometer. Alas quantum stuff isn't as
>    deterministic as bulk matter devices and suffer from the uncertainty
>    principle.

Physics was a 4 semester course and the 4th was quantum when it started to 
get weird. On one essay test I wrote about Heisenberg's uncertainty 
principle versus Heidegger's principle uncertainty. Fortunately the 
professor had a sense of humor or maybe he realized how far off the beaten 
path the original quantum guys got when you start thinking about the Being 
of beings.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#88557 — Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer.... physics? "quantum"?

On 7/1/2026 7:45 AM, rbowman wrote:
> 
> Physics was a 4 semester course and the 4th was quantum when it started to
> get weird. On one essay test I wrote about Heisenberg's uncertainty
> principle versus Heidegger's principle uncertainty. Fortunately the
> professor had a sense of humor or maybe he realized how far off the beaten
> path the original quantum guys got when you start thinking about the Being
> of beings.



I was taught by a lecturer who claimed to have studied
quantum mechanics, when I was studying about a Computer
Studies degree in City Polytechnic/University of HK.
He taught us some stoachastic mathematics including
queuing theory. One my my classmate became his
"apprentice" and got a PhD under CityU.

LEGEND - Dr. S.L. Hung
<https://sites.google.com/site/bsccs1990/home/teascher1/h-l-hung>

Kam Yiu LAM - CityUHK Scholars
<https://scholars.cityu.edu.hk/en/persons/cskylam/>

-- 

    @~@   Simplicity is Beauty! Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch!
   / v \  May the Force and farces be with you! Live long and prosper!!
  /( _ )\ https://sites.google.com/site/changmw/
    ^ ^   https://github.com/changmw/changmw
          The game is afoot... Meow...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#88565

On 6/30/26 19:45, rbowman wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 12:06:38 -0400, c186282 wrote:
> 
>>     Any better future stuff will have to exploit quantum effects - get
>>     more bang for yer nanometer. Alas quantum stuff isn't as
>>     deterministic as bulk matter devices and suffer from the uncertainty
>>     principle.
> 
> Physics was a 4 semester course and the 4th was quantum when it started to
> get weird. On one essay test I wrote about Heisenberg's uncertainty
> principle versus Heidegger's principle uncertainty. Fortunately the
> professor had a sense of humor or maybe he realized how far off the beaten
> path the original quantum guys got when you start thinking about the Being
> of beings.

   Hey, all we need is a "Heisenberg Compensator" :-)

   As for the old Quantum Guys (maybe a few gals) - they
   weren't really WRONG. The calx are the calx. Yea, it's
   a Weird Weird World - nothing sympathetic to the human
   nervous system - but then it's all NOT *ABOUT* US.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#88568 — Re: IBM - New SUB .... quantum mechanics is quantitative philiosphy?

On 7/1/2026 3:13 PM, c186282 wrote:
> On 6/30/26 19:45, rbowman wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 12:06:38 -0400, c186282 wrote:
>>
>> Physics was a 4 semester course and the 4th was quantum when it started to
>> get weird. On one essay test I wrote about Heisenberg's uncertainty
>> principle versus Heidegger's principle uncertainty. Fortunately the
>> professor had a sense of humor or maybe he realized how far off the beaten
>> path the original quantum guys got when you start thinking about the Being
>> of beings.
> 
>     Hey, all we need is a "Heisenberg Compensator" :-)
> 
>     As for the old Quantum Guys (maybe a few gals)...

So quantum mechanics is just pig-cheat? ;)
It's just mathematical philosophy?
Quantitative Philiosphy? :)

-- 

    @~@   Simplicity is Beauty! Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch!
   / v \  May the Force and farces be with you! Live long and prosper!!
  /( _ )\ https://sites.google.com/site/changmw/
    ^ ^   https://github.com/changmw/changmw
          The game is afoot... Meow...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#88570 — Re: IBM - New SUB .... quantum mechanics is quantitative philiosphy?

On 7/1/26 03:29, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
> On 7/1/2026 3:13 PM, c186282 wrote:
>> On 6/30/26 19:45, rbowman wrote:
>>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 12:06:38 -0400, c186282 wrote:
>>>
>>> Physics was a 4 semester course and the 4th was quantum when it 
>>> started to
>>> get weird. On one essay test I wrote about Heisenberg's uncertainty
>>> principle versus Heidegger's principle uncertainty. Fortunately the
>>> professor had a sense of humor or maybe he realized how far off the 
>>> beaten
>>> path the original quantum guys got when you start thinking about the 
>>> Being
>>> of beings.
>>
>>     Hey, all we need is a "Heisenberg Compensator" :-)
>>
>>     As for the old Quantum Guys (maybe a few gals)...
> 
> So quantum mechanics is just pig-cheat? ;)
> It's just mathematical philosophy?
> Quantitative Philiosphy? :)

   No, VERY quantitative.

   Did you expect the universe to appeal
   to anthropomorphic ideals ?

   It's NOT *ABOUT* US.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#88583 — Re: IBM - New SUB .... quantum mechanics is quantitative philiosphy?

On 7/1/2026 4:22 PM, c186282 wrote:
> On 7/1/26 03:29, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>>
>> So quantum mechanics is just pig-cheat? ;)
>> It's just mathematical philosophy?
>> Quantitative Philiosphy? :)
> 
>     No, VERY quantitative.
> 
>     Did you expect the universe to appeal
>     to anthropomorphic ideals ?
> 
>     It's NOT *ABOUT* US.

I see the world with my naked eyes.
NOT wearing mathematical eyeglasse. :)

-- 

    @~@   Simplicity is Beauty! Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch!
   / v \  May the Force and farces be with you! Live long and prosper!!
  /( _ )\ https://sites.google.com/site/changmw/
    ^ ^   https://github.com/changmw/changmw
          The game is afoot... Meow...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#88591 — Re: IBM - New SUB .... quantum mechanics is quantitative philiosphy?

On 7/1/26 11:41, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
> On 7/1/2026 4:22 PM, c186282 wrote:
>> On 7/1/26 03:29, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>>>
>>> So quantum mechanics is just pig-cheat? ;)
>>> It's just mathematical philosophy?
>>> Quantitative Philiosphy? :)
>>
>>     No, VERY quantitative.
>>
>>     Did you expect the universe to appeal
>>     to anthropomorphic ideals ?
>>
>>     It's NOT *ABOUT* US.
> 
> I see the world with my naked eyes.
> NOT wearing mathematical eyeglasse. :)


   Then you're only seeing half of it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#88592 — Re: IBM - New SUB .... quantum mechanics is FLAT?

On 7/2/2026 1:56 PM, c186282 wrote:
> On 7/1/26 11:41, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>>
>> I see the world with my naked eyes.
>> NOT wearing mathematical eyeglasse. :)
> 
>     Then you're only seeing half of it.


Okay, is the other half of it FLAT? ;)

-- 

    @~@   Simplicity is Beauty! Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch!
   / v \  May the Force and farces be with you! Live long and prosper!!
  /( _ )\ https://sites.google.com/site/changmw/
    ^ ^   https://github.com/changmw/changmw
          The game is afoot... Meow...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#88596 — Re: IBM - New SUB .... quantum mechanics is FLAT?

On 7/2/26 02:04, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
> On 7/2/2026 1:56 PM, c186282 wrote:
>> On 7/1/26 11:41, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>>>
>>> I see the world with my naked eyes.
>>> NOT wearing mathematical eyeglasse. :)
>>
>>     Then you're only seeing half of it.
> 
> 
> Okay, is the other half of it FLAT? ;)


   No, the most detailed tapestry ever.

   The Numbers can take you far beyond
   anything your senses can deliver,

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#88598 — Re: IBM - New SUB .... quantum mechanics is FLAT?

On Thu, 2 Jul 2026 16:50:44 -0400, c186282 wrote:

> On 7/2/26 02:04, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>> On 7/2/2026 1:56 PM, c186282 wrote:
>>> On 7/1/26 11:41, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I see the world with my naked eyes. NOT wearing mathematical
>>>> eyeglasse. :)
>>>
>>>     Then you're only seeing half of it.
>> 
>> 
>> Okay, is the other half of it FLAT? ;)
> 
> 
>    No, the most detailed tapestry ever.
> 
>    The Numbers can take you far beyond anything your senses can deliver,

Spoken like a true Pythagorean. Their Numbers were as real as Plato's 
Forms. 

I've always thought it odd 'Platonic realism' refers to the unreal.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#88600 — Re: IBM - New SUB .... quantum mechanics is FLAT?

On 7/2/26 17:26, rbowman wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jul 2026 16:50:44 -0400, c186282 wrote:
> 
>> On 7/2/26 02:04, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>>> On 7/2/2026 1:56 PM, c186282 wrote:
>>>> On 7/1/26 11:41, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I see the world with my naked eyes. NOT wearing mathematical
>>>>> eyeglasse. :)
>>>>
>>>>      Then you're only seeing half of it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Okay, is the other half of it FLAT? ;)
>>
>>
>>     No, the most detailed tapestry ever.
>>
>>     The Numbers can take you far beyond anything your senses can deliver,
> 
> Spoken like a true Pythagorean. Their Numbers were as real as Plato's
> Forms.

   Well, they were kind of NEW at the numbers
   back then  :-)

   Quantum mechanics came along a bit later.

> I've always thought it odd 'Platonic realism' refers to the unreal.

   IS kinda odd.

   Anyway, The Numbers have improved, and improved our
   understanding, over time - 'philosophy', not so much.
   Same old bullshitting about bullshit under the delusion
   that Answers will arise.

   Or maybe just that if you confuse people enough they
   will drop coins on yer collection plate ?  :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#88555

On Tue, 6/30/2026 12:06 PM, c186282 wrote:
> On 6/30/26 09:51, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>> On 6/30/2026 5:14 PM, c186282 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Can you fabricate 0.000000...0000000001 nm chips?
>>>>
>>>> Is zero the seal or wall? :)
>>>
>>>     Um, pretty quick you get to ATOMS ... and, for any
>>>     normal electronics, that's IT.
>>
>>
>> You cannot have 0.000000....00 nm chip.
>>
>> That's a void, empty, nothing. :)
> 
>   "Electronics" are now about literal atom-thick structures.
>   Can't go any smaller.
> 
>   Any better future stuff will have to exploit quantum
>   effects - get more bang for yer nanometer. Alas quantum
>   stuff isn't as deterministic as bulk matter devices
>   and suffer from the uncertainty principle.

But only if there are properties that actually have some use.

A quick Google tells me there is a thing called "spintronics"
which can make insulators. The materials are "foreign" to
current semiconductors (so the materials may not "play nice"
with the rest of the substrate). And having an insulator,
does not give me a switching transistor.

Historically, we've made good use of quantum mechanical "tunneling",
which is finding a way underneath energy barriers. We have one
afternoon lab using one of these (these diodes are used in
time domain reflectometry for the nice sharp edges). I put mine right
across the terminals of an HP gray-plastic power supply, the one with
the course and fine controls. And you can use the power supply
as a curve tracer, and walk the diode right up to the
point where it switches. The power supply has amazing
characteristics at DC (not so much at HF). And that was
a fun afternoon of farting around.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel_diode

And that's an illustration of an effect, it's not me predicting
they'll run right out and make something out of that.

This is another example of tunneling.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_memory#Fowler%E2%80%93Nordheim_tunneling

   "The Fowler-Nordheim tunneling effect is reversible, so electrons
    can be added to or removed from the floating gate, processes
    traditionally known as writing and erasing."

There's no uncertainty principle there, you need enough electrons
to maintain noise immunity.

If there is some property that can be used, and is not a flaky pastry,
then it will be introduced slowly. There is too much money involved
for this to be just "science", it's "business" too. And that affects
how you do it.

     Paul

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#88567

On 6/30/26 22:09, Paul wrote:
> On Tue, 6/30/2026 12:06 PM, c186282 wrote:
>> On 6/30/26 09:51, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>>> On 6/30/2026 5:14 PM, c186282 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you fabricate 0.000000...0000000001 nm chips?
>>>>>
>>>>> Is zero the seal or wall? :)
>>>>
>>>>      Um, pretty quick you get to ATOMS ... and, for any
>>>>      normal electronics, that's IT.
>>>
>>>
>>> You cannot have 0.000000....00 nm chip.
>>>
>>> That's a void, empty, nothing. :)
>>
>>    "Electronics" are now about literal atom-thick structures.
>>    Can't go any smaller.
>>
>>    Any better future stuff will have to exploit quantum
>>    effects - get more bang for yer nanometer. Alas quantum
>>    stuff isn't as deterministic as bulk matter devices
>>    and suffer from the uncertainty principle.
> 
> But only if there are properties that actually have some use.

   True.

   There do seem to be SOME uses - but "general utility"
   is not so clear.

> A quick Google tells me there is a thing called "spintronics"
> which can make insulators. The materials are "foreign" to
> current semiconductors (so the materials may not "play nice"
> with the rest of the substrate). And having an insulator,
> does not give me a switching transistor.

   Umm, no. "SpinTronics" may have uses - but, as you said,
   it does not segway neatly with existing tech.

   (fun - my spell-checker thing wants "Segway" - the
   two-wheeled commercial thingie :-)

   There are all sorts of exotic potential tech - weird
   probability waves spreading over 2-D surfaces and such.
   Can they be made into USEFUL technologies ? Maybe 10%
   and only for specialized uses.

   Existing transistor tech - it's deterministic, solid.
   Alas with the IBM product we've probably reached the
   bitter END of conventional electronics. Some seriously
   different stuff will be needed for The Future if we
   need more speed/density.

> Historically, we've made good use of quantum mechanical "tunneling",
> which is finding a way underneath energy barriers. We have one
> afternoon lab using one of these (these diodes are used in
> time domain reflectometry for the nice sharp edges). I put mine right
> across the terminals of an HP gray-plastic power supply, the one with
> the course and fine controls. And you can use the power supply
> as a curve tracer, and walk the diode right up to the
> point where it switches. The power supply has amazing
> characteristics at DC (not so much at HF). And that was
> a fun afternoon of farting around.
> 
>    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel_diode
> 
> And that's an illustration of an effect, it's not me predicting
> they'll run right out and make something out of that.
> 
> This is another example of tunneling.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_memory#Fowler%E2%80%93Nordheim_tunneling
> 
>     "The Fowler-Nordheim tunneling effect is reversible, so electrons
>      can be added to or removed from the floating gate, processes
>      traditionally known as writing and erasing."
> 
> There's no uncertainty principle there, you need enough electrons
> to maintain noise immunity.


   NO longer sure if you go below 1nm alas.


> If there is some property that can be used, and is not a flaky pastry,
> then it will be introduced slowly. There is too much money involved
> for this to be just "science", it's "business" too. And that affects
> how you do it.

   Expect a LOT of flaky pastries in short order.

   One or two will be useful/do-able.

   The rest ....

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#88576

On 01/07/2026 08:29, c186282 wrote:

>    Umm, no. "SpinTronics" may have uses - but, as you said,
>    it does not segway neatly with existing tech.
> 
SEGUE
 From the iItalian. Same root as 'sequence'

>    (fun - my spell-checker thing wants "Segway" - the
>    two-wheeled commercial thingie :-)
> 
>  ...
>    Existing transistor tech - it's deterministic, solid.

No. its probabilistic. Nu the probabilities are very c;lose to unity.


>    Alas with the IBM product we've probably reached the
>    bitter END of conventional electronics. Some seriously
>    different stuff will be needed for The Future if we
>    need more speed/density.
> 
Waffle.



-- 
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have 
guns, why should we let them have ideas?

Josef Stalin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#88575

On 01/07/2026 03:09, Paul wrote:
> There's no uncertainty principle there, you need enough electrons
> to maintain noise immunity.

Quantum uncertainty becomes macro certainty as the probability 
approaches unity.

In terms of nanometre sized chip technology, that is a measurable 
distance from unity


-- 
“The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to 
fill the world with fools.”

Herbert Spencer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#88536

On 30/06/2026 10:14, c186282 wrote:
> On 6/29/26 07:20, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>> On 6/29/2026 1:39 PM, c186282 wrote:
>>>
>>>     Amazed they were able to get this small - but do
>>>     expect a wall/seal is pretty much here. We're
>>>     talking kinda atomic dimensions now - nowhere else
>>>     to go using any conventional approaches. Anything
>>>     much further won't be 'electronics' as we know it,
>>>     some kind of weird quantum stuff.
>>>
>>>     STABLE deca-state logic maybe ?
>>
>> Can you fabricate 0.000000...0000000001 nm chips?
>>
>> Is zero the seal or wall? :)
> 
>    Um, pretty quick you get to ATOMS ... and, for any
>    normal electronics, that's IT.
> 
Actually the limit is a fair bit above atoms

GOOGLE AI
=========
"Transistor nodes have shrunk dramatically, with leading developers like 
IBM advancing into the sub-1 nanometre realm (e.g., 0.7-nanometer tech). 
However, absolute limits are rapidly approaching due to several factors:

     Quantum Tunnelling: At sizes measuring just a few atoms across, 
electrons no longer stay neatly in their channels. They start randomly 
leaking or tunnelling through insulation barriers, resulting in massive 
power loss and data corruption.

     Atomic Boundary: The absolute physical limit for a silicon 
semiconductor is effectively constrained by the size of the silicon 
crystal unit cell (about 0.54 nm).

      Heat Density: Shrinking transistors allows more components to be 
packed together, but it creates extreme heat concentrations. The 
challenge shifts from building them to keeping them cool without burning 
out£

.....

I note that google can't spall 'nanometre' OR 'tunnelling; correctly

...
-- 
Any fool can believe in principles -  and most of them do!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#88538

On 6/30/26 11:27, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 30/06/2026 10:14, c186282 wrote:
>> On 6/29/26 07:20, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>>> On 6/29/2026 1:39 PM, c186282 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>     Amazed they were able to get this small - but do
>>>>     expect a wall/seal is pretty much here. We're
>>>>     talking kinda atomic dimensions now - nowhere else
>>>>     to go using any conventional approaches. Anything
>>>>     much further won't be 'electronics' as we know it,
>>>>     some kind of weird quantum stuff.
>>>>
>>>>     STABLE deca-state logic maybe ?
>>>
>>> Can you fabricate 0.000000...0000000001 nm chips?
>>>
>>> Is zero the seal or wall? :)
>>
>>    Um, pretty quick you get to ATOMS ... and, for any
>>    normal electronics, that's IT.
>>
> Actually the limit is a fair bit above atoms

   True ... but 'atoms' can be easily grasped as
   an absolute limit for any conventional electronics.

> GOOGLE AI
> =========
> "Transistor nodes have shrunk dramatically, with leading developers like 
> IBM advancing into the sub-1 nanometre realm (e.g., 0.7-nanometer tech). 
> However, absolute limits are rapidly approaching due to several factors:
> 
>      Quantum Tunnelling: At sizes measuring just a few atoms across, 
> electrons no longer stay neatly in their channels. They start randomly 
> leaking or tunnelling through insulation barriers, resulting in massive 
> power loss and data corruption.
> 
>      Atomic Boundary: The absolute physical limit for a silicon 
> semiconductor is effectively constrained by the size of the silicon 
> crystal unit cell (about 0.54 nm).
> 
>       Heat Density: Shrinking transistors allows more components to be 
> packed together, but it creates extreme heat concentrations. The 
> challenge shifts from building them to keeping them cool without burning 
> out£

   Yep ... shrink too much and yer electrons start
   disappearing and showing up in weird places.

   IBM may have just built the Final Chip, so
   to speak. Better stuff will have to use very
   different technologies.

> .....
> 
> I note that google can't spall 'nanometre' OR 'tunnelling; correctly

   Lots of words I have problems with as well - and I was
   always good at spelling.

   'nanometre' ... sounds almost like a Euro spelling, kind
   of like the Brits use 'colour'  :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#88539

On 30/06/2026 17:18, c186282 wrote:
> 'nanometre' ... sounds almost like a Euro spelling, kind
>    of like the Brits use 'colour'  🙂

A meter has a dial and is used to measure things. Metres are units of 
distance measurement.


-- 
Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 
twenty-first century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a 
globally average temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, 
on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer 
projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to 
contemplate a rollback of the industrial age.

Richard Lindzen

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#88550

On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 17:32:46 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 30/06/2026 17:18, c186282 wrote:
>> 'nanometre' ... sounds almost like a Euro spelling, kind
>>    of like the Brits use 'colour'  🙂
> 
> A meter has a dial and is used to measure things. Metres are units of
> distance measurement.

In a few days the US will celebrate the 250th anniversary of telling the 
Brits to piss off. That includes their quaint Eurotrash spelling.

I doubt there will be a 300th anniversary. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#88564

On 6/30/26 19:40, rbowman wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 17:32:46 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> 
>> On 30/06/2026 17:18, c186282 wrote:
>>> 'nanometre' ... sounds almost like a Euro spelling, kind
>>>     of like the Brits use 'colour'  🙂
>>
>> A meter has a dial and is used to measure things. Metres are units of
>> distance measurement.
> 
> In a few days the US will celebrate the 250th anniversary of telling the
> Brits to piss off. That includes their quaint Eurotrash spelling.
> 
> I doubt there will be a 300th anniversary.

   Well, there WILL be - technically.

   Whether it will be anything LIKE the
   originally envisioned/realized USA
   is another question. MANY are keen
   on the Pol Pot Challenge ...

   We DID see a lot of this in the 1960s,
   exact same neo-Marxist slogans/rhetoric,
   but there WAS that "silent majority" of
   moderate Regular Joes/Janes then. No more.

   Insanity rules now. The most absurd rhetoric
   is widely believed as True.

   NOT good !

   Hmmmm ... one New York candidate, media darling,
   wants to eliminate ALL cops/courts/jails etc.
   The Crowd just LOVES her !

   In "A Clockwork Orange" the govt could not control
   the thugs. So, it HIRED them to be the new police
   and such. Very very bad - and it seems like what
   is being pushed NOW. Gangster Rule.

   The thugs are viewed as the new Red Guard - the
   brutal enforcers. The 'elite' decide, the thugs
   CRUSH all opponents.

   The NAZIs did this, as did Stalin and Mao and
   Pol Pot. Empower the evil nobodies and they
   WILL be your most loyal and fanatical adherents.
   Body-count unlimited.

   Did equal/fair/ethical/democratic disappear THIS
   fuckin' fast ? Maybe so. Back to overlords and
   conquerors and fanatics .........

   I'm too old to live in some mountain bunker
   anymore - and TOO much of the world has gone
   more or less commie. Alas both Russia and
   China have DUMPED 'communism' - didn't work
   fer shit.

   So what, Namibia ? Do they have 'golden visas' ?
   FAR off-grid though ... nobody anywhere gives
   a shit ......

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc

csiph-web