Spintronics May Lead to Quantum Microchips 103
Rashan writes "A Scientific American article which waxes poetic about the possibility of microchips which use the "spin" of an electron to perform their functions." An excellent explanation of a complex subject.
Re:Im ready... (Score:3, Interesting)
QE transcievers by their very nature, are untraceable. Say you and I have a dialogue via anonymous email, and we agree to exchange a transciever pair. I go to Central Park at midnight, and pull the transciever pairmate out of a trashcan... we can network now, without knowing who the other is, or where they are. Chain 20 people together like that, and warez (just one example) would be unstoppable.
So, if you are part of the gov, how do you stop this? You make sure that eash QE transciever is built in such a way, that it can't be tampered with without unentangling. Then, you build a GPS reciever into it, connected to a second QE particle. It's pairmate will be in the Federal QE Network monitoring center... they'll be able to narrow it down to within a few feet geographically. It will allow them to sniff all traffic traveling through the QEnet, and will pinpoint where it is coming from.
You're infinite bandwidth will only be useful for a (nearly) infinite amount of advertising and some overpriced pay content.
The only hope we have, is that it's somehow simple to make your own QE transciever, and that someone anonymously publishes on the web just how to make your own. Make it underground.
Re:Im ready... (Score:2)
For shame. You're a reader of slashdot
You should know by now that there's no such thing as tamper-proof technology.
Believe it or not, where there's a will, there really, actually IS a way.
Re:Im ready... (Score:2)
Apparently, you have no idea how *fragile* quantum entanglement is. In any other case, you might be right, but not this one.
Hell, even with conventional technology "locks" some are good enough that only the talented can manage to "pick" them. And we are talking about a case where if the majority can't defeat it, then there is no point in defeating it.
Re:Im ready... (Score:1)
Re:Im ready... (Score:1)
QE will, however, as another poster points out, allow (in principle) (near-)perfect encryption since it solves the problem of OTP distribution - anybody viewing the OTP changes it in a way that is very detectable (they collapse the quantum wave function and cannot recover it). So.
Other uses are anonymity, but here it'd only be classical-protocol anonymity protected by the (near-)perfect encryption offered by QE.
Depending on your interest and math levels, you might want to pick up a QM textbook (warning: QM is *lots and lots* of linear algebra and tensor math) or an introductory text (though no titles jump to mind, sorry).
-Knots
Re:Im ready... (Score:2)
QE won't allow near perfect encryption. What it will allow is a transmission medium that is untraceable geographically and one that is eavesdrop proof.
But then, it may not even be that. Unless you manufacture these things yourself, under direct supervision, there is no way to know that the gov hasn't placed a second pair of QE particles in the device... sure, you can open it up and look, which collapses the damn thing. Besides, why would you want to distribute keys anymore? So you can talk safely over the phone? Hello McFly, assuming that you can trust the QE transciever in the first place, just speak over it... eavesdropping is impossible.
But I can see how it would be cool to connect QE pairmates up to gigabit ethernet transcievers. Just plug it into your switch, and you have perfect wireless networking that is without distance or interference limitations.
Re:Im ready... (Score:1)
No, QE is not going to allow for FTL information transport, since the particles themselves can never be moved faster than light. The wave function collapses to give either corresponding or anti-corresponding values at each of the detectors (subject to the carrier media of the quantum wave function - photons are anti-corresponding, IIRC, others are corresponding). The value cannot be determined ahead of time without collapsing the wave function and making it classical information transport.
FTL isn't moot - it's what the original poster said he wanted!
QE *will* allow for near perfect encryption - using the now-standard key generation algorithms to generate a OTP will be slow but, surprise, perfect. And if you think for a minute that the government can clone the qubits used in key exchange - you're wrong, the very act of trying collapses the wave function! And by collapsing the function, it will, of course, be detectable by the checking phases of the key generation algorithms.
And *what* are you talking about, wireless networking without distance or interference limitations!? It's a nice idea, but no, QE as key exchange (QE cannot really be used for information transfer, though the classical photonic methods work) has been demonstrated as viable over several kilometers with highly directed transceiver pairs, but it's certainly not a replacement for 802.11.
Please, please, I implore you, read up on QM and information theory. If you can point a single counterexample experiment that demonstrates FTL information trasfer, QE as a way of information transport, etc. please let me know. But until I see one, I will trust my textbooks.
-knots
Re:Im ready... (Score:2)
What, a dozen people in history have been as far away as the moon? Which has a 2000ms ping time. The original poster most certainly doesn't live there, so FTL information transport probably isn't a priority of his.
I'm not even sure what you're talking about any more. OTP's are easy to come by, it's distributing them securely that is a problem. So you buy your little black box that in theory lets you recieve the OTP securely. Big deal
Another device hidden inside, watches the signal as you recieve it. Not in the middle where it collapses. Besides, if QE allows secure OTP transmission, send the message that way, unencrypted.
QE photons and what not are much easier to come by, but not as fun. I've read hints that more docile particles might be subject to QE, in such a way that they could refrain from collapsing even after seperated by any distance. In such cases, it might be possible to send data using these as a transmitter and reciever (for duplex, you'd need 2 pairs). Figuring out a way to do this so that you could send info without collapsing them would be difficult, likely impossible in practice. I've heard stuff to the effect that this may indeed be instantaneous, or still subject to FTL. Either way, who cares? It would still kick ass. Any point on the globe is never farther than what, 8000 miles or so from you? That's an acceptable ping time in my books.
I believe you're referring to using QM to send a signal that can be intercepted, but in doing so betrays the eavesdropping (since the eavesdropper can never make a 2nd fake signal that will match the first). This has been performed with photons over both fiber, and through the air. Cool, but nothing I really care about.
So that others have a clue what we're even talking about, the layman's explanation of QE is tricking 2 or more particles into believing that they are the same particle, at least as far as certain properties are concerned. Push one particle, the other also moves, etc. More than likely, it's science fiction (I think Ender's Game was the first I've read to use this premise). But then what tech isn't scifi before it's invented?
Re:Im ready... (Score:1)
Every particle is subject to QE, it's just a trick to get it superimposed and maintain its state as such. It's fundamental to QM.
Once again, once you collapse a quantum wave function (by observing the entangled particles), re-entangling them would require information to be sent among them - so no FTL that way either.
If you care about QE at all, you care about key generation. Otherwise you shouldn't care about QE - it's useless for information *transfer*. No, push one particle the other *doesn't* move - they just collapse to the same (or opposite, depending on *what* you have entangled - photons, protons, etc) state *no matter how you measure them*. Once again, this aspect of matter cannot be exploited for FTL information transfer. It can't be exploited for information transfer at all without in some way transfering the information through another channel.
-Knots
Re:Im ready... (Score:2)
Never, and I mean ***NEVER*** has it ever been described to me that OTP's are difficult because of a randomization problem. Sure, many general rand()'s are far from the quality needed for OTP. But this doesn't rule it out. Using wav files of static noise are generally high enough quality, using the hardware rand() in a Pentium 3 is even better. The coin toss problem has been fixed...
It's getting the OTP (one time pad, if I've not explained it yet) to the other person securely that has ***ALWAYS*** been the problem.
So I think it's you that is confused, not I.
QM does allow for safe OTP distribution, but this can still be eavesdropped on. It just makes it obvious to the encrypters that someone is eavesdropping, and that they need to try again before sending the important message. This method has little, or nothing to do with QE, that I am aware of.
And my laymen's explanation of QE is still better than yours, if far from perfectly accurate. The gist of it remains the same. You know, you actually had me for a second, checking to be sure I wasn't brain farting, and using the term QE when I really meant something else. Fucking trolls.
Spintrons....... (Score:2, Funny)
spintronics.
Watch out all you chip companies, Big Bad Maytag
will sue you all for IP violations!
(In reality though wouldn't it be nice if all computers were as dependable as washing machines?)
Re:terminology? (Score:1)
Just kidding.. spinors are the mathematical descriptions (wavefunctions) of particles that have spin. On the other hand, I disagree with the original story where it said that 'spintronics is short for spin electronics'.
Because electronics are not always about electrons. In many semiconductors, the charge carriers are positive. What matters is the transfer of charge, which comes in units of e, the electron charge.
So, electronics is about charge (e) transfer, and spintronics is about spin transfer. Even then, it need not be electron spin.
nice joke (Score:2)
Re:terminology? (Score:1)
positive. What matters is the transfer of charge, which comes in units of e, the electron charge.
I don't know how much solid-state physics you already have, but for the benefit of others, I'll clarify a bit. The positive charge carriers are still really due to electrons.
Nearly-empty bands can be thought of as having mobile negatively-charged electrons, while almost-full bands can be thought of as having mobile positively-charged holes. The holes are merely lack of electrons, and act like a physical entity, but is really the lack of an entity. Kind of like bubbles in a liquid. They denote locales where the fluid is not, but the bubble looks like a particle in itself moving through the liquid medium.
Re:terminology? (Score:2)
Re:terminology .. explained (Score:5, Interesting)
No, they use Spin-dependent electrons. This is spintronics, in a nutshell.
Up until now, almost all electronic devices have made use only of the electronic charge. Ie, amplifying it, switching on it, transferring it, etc.
Well, in a subtle manner, there is spin dependence in the above, due to Pauli exclusion, but that's buried in the quantum statistics.
Remember the electron is a spin-1/2 fermion, and hence has two possible states for a measure of it's spin in any given direction. Spin is an inherent property of many particles, with no classical analog, but you can think of it roughly as an angular momentum. Spin is quantized, unlike a spinning top. A spinning top is a classical system, which can have any rotational speed from 0 to any positive/negative values. (Negative means opposite direction of spin as a positive value).
Since the electrons are quantized spin-1/2 particles, there are only two measures of the spin angular momentum that are valid. +-(1/2)hbar where hbar is the Planck constant. Thus, an electron can only spin one way or another, there are no intermediate values (including no zero value, so it's ALWAYS spinning). Also note that this spin doesn't really represent the electron spinning about it's own axis, it's an inherently internal concept that's is actually quite involved.
These two values of spin of an electron can now be exploited in new devices. Right now the goal is to make devices that can inject electrons of one value of spin, and make transistors that work only for certain values of spin, or preserve spin parity, etc. Quantum computation would work nicely here too because the two states of spin are a good basis for representing a binary digit.
I haven't read the Scientific American article, so I don't know if I'm just repeating the obvious or not. But I'm a graduate physics student right now, and I hope to eventually work on some applications of spintronics. It is a currently buzzing field with much potential.
Re:spintronics? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:spintronics? (Score:1)
Use quarks instead! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Use quarks instead! (Score:2)
parallel universes (Score:1)
we already have that:
fork()
sound like a good idea but... (Score:3, Funny)
I'm sorry (Score:2)
How about interference? (Score:2, Interesting)
In times when my neighbor can fry all my PCs with a home-made impulse gun I'd be more interested in a light-based chip.
Re:How about interference? (Score:1)
Hmmm.... (Score:1)
Re:Hmmm.... (Score:2)
spin-control (Score:1)
this is similar to the startup I was at... (Score:2)
Electron Encapsulation (Score:1)
If they are going to use electron spins to keep track of information, how are we to encapsulate the electrons, with other electrons? Didn't the article say that they affect all other electrons in the area?
Re:Electron Encapsulation (Score:1)
The article said that the spin is coherent within the channel as long as the ferromagnet is switched in the correct way. It also said that the spin alignment had very short coherence outside the field. Depending on the material and mechanism anywhere from a few picoseconds to a few hundred nanoseconds. The reason for the decoherence is as you stated. Spin alignment is adversely affected by magnetic and electric fields. Since surrounding electrons give off such fields, you get really short spin alignment times.
Re:Just one question... (Score:1)
Hard drives are already "spintronic" (Score:2)
Re:Hard drives are already "spintronic" (Score:3, Informative)
What if... (Score:1, Offtopic)
One immediate advantage: No more booting? (Score:2, Insightful)
Spintronics could mean the end of booting your computer. From the article [sciam.com]:
More sophisticated storage technologies based on spintronics are already at an advanced stage: in the next few years, MRAM (magnetic random-access memory), a new type of computer memory, will go on the market. MRAMs would retain their state even when the power was turned off, but unlike present forms of nonvolatile memory, they would have switching rates and rewritability challenging those of conventional RAM.
Think about what this means! You will be able to turn off your MRAM computer and when you turn it back on, you won't have to boot it. The computer (its memory) would be in the state in which you left it. Think of how nice that'll be!
Of course, when Windows crashed everyday, you'd still have to boot it.
Re:One immediate advantage: No more booting? (Score:1)
Of course something else must be done, for example with CPU registers. Interestingly, MRAM technology also holds the key to 'magnetic CPU' which maintains its state in the same way as MRAM. That way, you have in a single chip, CPU, RAM and harddisk functionality.
sqrt(!) (Score:1)
The mind boggles at the power of a quantum parallel CPU and that's before some smart arse overclocks it.
Quantum computer school (Score:4, Informative)
No more binary... (Score:1)
Re:No more binary... (Score:1)
Re:No more binary... (Score:1)
spintronics == para-magnetic (Score:2)
My field! (Score:5, Informative)
Noticed something in that article - they state that the hard disk read heads use GMR sensors - not quite accurate. They use a single unit spin valve. GMR devices consist of many layers stacked on top of each other, and, more pertinantly, they operate at large magnetic fields. The sensor used have a lower field for peak sensitivity, and the change in resistance in smaller. GMR is conventionally used in the literature to indicate large, multi-layer devices. [0]
One thing that the article glosses over slightly is the difficulty in construction. Well, it's not so much a dificulty, as a paradigm shift. The metal GMR structures are built vertically onto a substrate, and thus the working current flows perpindicular to the plane of the substrate. This is distinct from traditional semiconductors, where the principle direction of the working current is parrallel to the plane of the substrate.
The notable exception would be the spin FET, but they've not actually been built yet, so it's a little tricky to comment on.
One option that the article didn't mention is the possibily of generating a magnetic semi-comductor / metal by using a conventional magnetic insulator (such as NiO, MnO or Fe2O3), and dopeing, or otherwise adjusting the electrical properties [1].
My research is into combined ab initio and statistical mechanical models of ultra thin films of the magnetic insulators. Particularly interesting is what happens when a two atom thick layer of iron is put over an NiO surface - spin dependant electron transfer, which is interesting. All in all, most of my work is the blue sky / basic building block level.
My point is that the spintronic devices require a finre degree of control in construction - by thier nature, the magnetic structure is important. Oh, and as a kicker to this, the length scale for a defect in a magnetic lattice is around 20 or so times larger than it's affect on the electrical properties. Additionally, it seems likely (to me) that other routes to mass manufacture may have to be found.
In other words: These are going to cost more. Not just because they are new, but also because they are inherently more complicated devices that electronic semiconductore devices.
[0] Well, in PhysRev anyway. IEEE and similar may use a different nomenclature
[1] My calculations suggest that a layer of NiO 4 formula units thick, or thinner, will be a metal.
Early drives were *magnetoresistive* ? (Score:1)
All earlier practical Hard Drives before the "discovery" of the GMR effect used Electromagnetic heads; wildly different practicalities than GMR heads. They were simple electromagnetic devices mounted on aerodynamic substrates; low impedance, wire wound affairs and definitely NOT magnetoresistive.
Did I miss something in the spin and magnetism physics relationship??
...what? (Score:1)
I thought that was the basis of quantum computing? At least when I read about it 2 years ago it was..... called a qbit?
Distorsion (Score:1)
Heisenbugs (Score:1)
Imagine that programs
in a quantum computer can have bugs that
disappear as soon as you try to observe them.
In current programming there are sometimes problems that disappear as soon as you try to debug them, the disappearance apparantly caused by the interaction with the debugger program.
These bugs are called "Heisenbugs".
It just appeared to me that quantum programs could have actual Heisenbugs.