Engineers Report Breakthrough in Laser Beam Tech 208
petralynn writes to tell us the New York Times is reporting that Stanford engineers have discovered a method to modulate a beam of laser light up to 100 billion times a second. The new technology apparently uses materials that are already in wide use throughout the semiconductor industry. From the article: "The vision here is that, with the much stronger physics, we can imagine large numbers - hundreds or even thousands - of optical connections off of chips," said David A.B. Miller, director of the Solid State and Photonics Laboratory at Stanford University. "Those large numbers could get rid of the bottlenecks of wiring, bottlenecks that are quite evident today and are one of the reasons the clock speeds on your desktop computer have not really been going up much in recent years."
More informative article: (Score:5, Informative)
The NYT story is pretty light on the technical details....a more detail-oriented write-up can be found here [eurekalert.org]... and you don't have to register to read it.
Re:More informative article: (Score:2)
Re:More informative article: (Score:5, Funny)
Re:More informative article: (Score:3, Interesting)
The Silicon Solution [ieee.org]
Re:More informative article: (Score:2, Funny)
What kind of a geek are you?
Re:More informative article: (Score:2)
Re:An Open Letter to Solid State and Photonics Lab (Score:4, Insightful)
Your tinfoil hat slipped loose.
Does that mean... (Score:1, Funny)
100 billion hits per second (Score:2)
BugMeNot shortcut for 'ya ... (Score:3, Informative)
This work was funded by Intel and DARPA with some assistance from an HP researcher and uses something called the Quantum-Confined Stark Effect [google.com] with primary application in optical networking gear ... but hey, maybe
we'll see a 100 GHz PC in the not-too-distant future.
The halloween webcam is up [komar.org] ... but X10 technology isn't capable of 100 Billion times/second updates ... ;-)
Quantum Optical Laptops (Score:2)
What are you talking about? I've had a 6.8 GHz laptop [slashdot.org] for over a month. It does quantum-optical calculations damn quick, and runs Duke Nukem Forever!
Quantum-Confined Stark Effect (Score:2)
WTF is Standford University? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:WTF is Standford University? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:WTF is Standford University? (Score:2, Funny)
Modulated the power of my laptop (Score:1)
Modulating Laser... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Modulating Laser... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Modulating Laser... (Score:2)
All I wanted... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:All I wanted... (Score:3, Funny)
Warning stickers... (Score:2)
ABSOLUTELY, DO NOT OPEN THE CHIP CASING AND LOOK AT THE FIGGEN' LASER, STUPID. IT WILL MELT YOUR FACE!
Because, I'm thinking that will be needed for something that modulates (holds pinky to mouth) 100 BEEEELLION times per second!
Who?? (Score:5, Funny)
That's awesome. I can't wait for Hraverd and Yalle to catch up.
Re:Who?? (Score:2)
"Yes, I yust got out last week!"
Obligatory Reference (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Obligatory Reference (Score:3, Interesting)
Desktop power not going up much? (Score:5, Interesting)
This sounds silly to me since desktop power (say a $500 system - discounting monitor and keyboard) is increasing exponentially, doubling every two years compared to the price. The machine I built this spring was twice as powerful than a system I built in 2003 for the same money, but 8 times as powerful as a machine I built just 6 years ago and is about 128 times as powerful as the machine I had when I went to college in 92. And I am only considering pure clock speed, not increases in the efficiency of chips, growth of RAM and disk for the price, etc. While Moore's law concerning silicon chips will start faltering as we approach 2020, I have been nothing but impressed with how desktop performance continues to improve.
These new laser improvements, and things like molecular computing, will help us continue on after the 2020 mark with our current exponential growth.
Sorry to go off, I just got done reading The Sigularity Is Near [amazon.com]
Re:Desktop power not going up much? (Score:3, Informative)
More efficient processors are only just closing in on 3ghz... pretty bad when the P3 (also reasonably good IPC) came out at 1GHz *5 years* ago.
Intel and AMD have clearly indicated that the good old days are over by introducing dual-cor
Re:Desktop power not going up much? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Desktop power not going up much? (Score:3, Informative)
Who cares? They're more efficient. They don't need to run at 3ghz to be faster that the old stuff. Just because the clock speed isn't there yet doesn't mean the performance hasn't gone up. Look how many times AMD has pulled ahead of Intel in performance, and they've never even shipped a 3ghz CPU. The only thing that has fallen off is the power of intel's old marketing. The only reason there's a 3ghz number to "catch up to" is that so much performa
Re:Desktop power not going up much? (Score:2)
I'm not so sure about that. Speeds may have only increased from 3Ghz to 3.8Ghz in the last 1-2 years, but that's still a respectable 27% increase over a 1 year period. Of course you are right, the biggest increases have been with the multicore and 32-64 bit architecture changes. Clock speed may not be doubling every 18 months, but a 27% annual increase is nothing to sneeze at either.
Personally, I believe part of the reason we have
Re:Desktop power not going up much? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Desktop power not going up much? (Score:2)
I only use Moore's Law as a side note here, so don't let that old argument take you away from my real point. I am talking about the PC you can buy for a fixed prices, $500 in my case. I wish my scanner was not borked, or I would scan in a chart I have sitting right in front of me proving that this trend of being able to purchase twice the machine for the same price every t
Re:Desktop power not going up much? (Score:2)
Re:Desktop power not going up much? (Score:2)
To address your question about benefits to mankind, I think you will soon find that a number of huge questions will be answered via distibuted computing. Project like SETI's screensa
Re:Desktop power not going up much? (Score:2)
Re:Desktop power not going up much? (Score:2)
We probably have at least 3 more generations of process shrink before any sort of "wall", and quite possibly several beyond that. The SIA roadmap isn't mostly red until after 2011, and many of those problems are solvable in less than the 6 years we have left.
Re:moores law my hindquarters (Score:2)
Re:moores law my hindquarters (Score:2)
Digital Bandwidth? (Score:2, Offtopic)
While this may not be THE discovery I was alluding to, it proves that the door surely isn't closed.
While science can find use in this discovery, I'm more interested in profitable consumer uses. What are the possibilities there?
Re:Digital Bandwidth? (Score:5, Interesting)
The Silicon Solution [ieee.org]
It describes what I believe is the same breakthrough in considerable detail. The Big Deal is that lasers can now be made from standard CMOS silicon fab processes, meaning you can integrate the lasers and optoelectronics directly into the chip without needing radically new chip fab techniques. Really interesting stuff!
Re:Digital Bandwidth? (Score:2)
10.4.5 404 Not Found
The server has not found anything matching the Request-URI. No indication is given of whether the condition is temporary or permanent.
Re:Digital Bandwidth? (Score:2)
The fundamental limits haven't changed.
materials.. (Score:2)
I've been wanting to know for some time if there is a material that can switch from transparent to reflective? It would need to be pretty fast (or slow, if you could also slow down the speed of light, which I have read somewhere can be done)
Re:materials.. (Score:2)
I only took 3 materials science classes in Undergrad, so this won't be a full answer, but it might get you started on the right track.
I recall that some crystalline materials exhibit very different refractive and reflective properties when put under mechanical strain. Materials that do this but with electricity are how we make accelerometers these days. So a crystal that either transmits the light or refracts it off into a random direction depending on strain may be what you're looking for. No clue what
Re:materials.. (Score:2)
Yeah, I know about MEMS and DLP devices, but I want something solid state.
Heat dissipation? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Heat dissipation? (Score:2)
Re:materials.. (Score:2)
Re:materials.. (Score:2)
But if I understand what you are saying, you are talking about a semiconductor that is either transparent or absorbant, not reflective. I need something that can literaly be like a mirror in one state or like glass in the other. Alternately, if it could be reflective in one state like a normal mirror, or reflect at a different predictable direction in the other state. Although I imagine if there were such a material known they would be using it instead of MEMS in DLP devices alread
Good but not great? (Score:2)
What wavelength? (Score:2, Interesting)
What is the wavelength of these excitons in SiGe? If it's significantly different than 1.3 microns - 1.5 microns, then this is a short-haul play -- like inside a box. In any case, 100 Gb/s is generally fragile stuff anyway over long distance, so it's highly unlikely that this is part of some global supercomputer, as the article suggests.
That's OK, though. This might be great stuff for optical interconnection buses.
BTW, D.A.B Miller is a big name
Re:What wavelength? (Score:2)
Clear quantum confinement is seen, with strong exciton peaks that we assign to electron-to-heavy-hole (e-hh;
Will lower barriers to new data providers (Score:2)
At the very least, it will make it possible for gigabit ethernet switches to use an optical brain to handle much larger total loads and likely at lower costs. (No, I don't know if this is cheaper to make but I figure the low grade parts that don't run at full speed will be sol
Publicity (Score:2)
I'll stick to Journal articles to see if the technology actually works though.
Re:Publicity (Score:2)
Re:Publicity (Score:2)
Other designers working in the field were also cautious about direct applications of the technology. Alex Dickenson, chief executive of Luxtera, a Carlsbad, Calif. start-up firm that announced a 10-billion bit per second optical modulator using a different silicon-based approach earlier this year, said that he believed there would significant hur
Opportunity for new "PCB" makers (Score:3, Interesting)
The first company to develop a low-cost, high-quality tech for "printing" optical traces will make a mint once these interconnects become common. I'd bet that the ultimate technology will be a sandwich of resins with etched channels and vapor-deposited reflective layers, walls, corners (or high-index resin filling). For most applications, the optical interconnect can be single-layer because the non-interference on crossing beams will let two traces/channels cross each other with interference.
Inventions like this one are a great start. But until they find away to make cheap circuits to route optical connections on a board, this tech won't see widespread adoption.
Re:Opportunity for new "PCB" makers (Score:2)
See, no one is going to "print" optical traces. Unless you consider gluing fiber to a board "printing." Fiber optic cables are cheaper than PCB by a long shot, which is why they are used for optical interconnect now, and will be in the forseeable future.
How does laid fiber scale? (Score:2)
Yes, fiber is cheap for point-to-point routings, but I doubt it scales well. What happens when a motherboard becomes 100% optical interconnect -- with virtually every chip and attached device using optics to communicate? Optical connections would run from
Re:How does laid fiber scale? (Score:2)
Yes, fiber is cheap for point-to-point routings, but I doubt it scales well. What happens when a motherboard becomes 100% optical interconnect -- with virtually every chip and attached device using optics to communicate? Optical connections would run from the CPU (maybe each core of the CPU) to memory controller, cache, main memory banks (perhaps one fiber per optically connected RAM card), I/O controllers, mass storage devices, I/O ports, expansion bus slots (again, one fiber per slot), etc. A single mo
Genetic engineers wanted... (Score:3, Funny)
speed * time (Score:2)
At that rate, the universe is almost stationary.
Baz
Great! (Score:2)
100 billion times per second? (Score:2)
Re:100 billion times per second? (Score:2)
(*)
Overstated results (Score:5, Interesting)
What these guys have found is a physical effect that possibly could lead to fast modulation of light. Neglected in the press release are a few fairly important issues:
All that being said, this is still very exciting. It is a new physical effect demonstrated in a silicon-based material, and a physical effect that has been used elsewhere to do useful things. Hopefully a real modulation device will come along shortly.
Re:Overstated results (Score:2)
No more Gigabit Ethernet (Score:2)
This has nothing to do with CPU clock speeds.. (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure the wiring "bottleneck" has, uh, absolutely nothing to do with why clock speeds haven't been going up. CPUs can run at whatever speed they like, independent of the bus. (Well.. an arbitrary multiplier of the bus; not independent strictly speaking). The problem is t
Not CPU speed.... BUS speed.... (Score:2)
Re:Moore's Law Finally Broken?!?!?!? (Score:2, Informative)
From the article:
Several industry executives said the advance was significant because it meant that optical data networks were now on the same Moore's Law curve of increasing performance and falling cost that has driven the computer industry for the past four decades.
Doh! Don't you hate it when you get all high and mighty posting about
Re:Moore's Law Finally Broken?!?!?!? (Score:2, Informative)
In any case, while Moore's Law is specific to transitor based circuitry, the pattern is applicable to other technologies, such as Kryder's Law which covers rigid magnetic media (hard drives). In fact, looking at these cases in general within a field of technology suggests a more abstract pattern. After all, the original component technologies with which Moore worked when he made h
Re:Moore's Law Finally Broken?!?!?!? (Score:2)
Re:Moore's Law Finally Broken?!?!?!? (Score:2)
Re:Speed of light vs. speed of electrons in wire? (Score:4, Informative)
The electromotive force, or voltage, travels at about the speed of light.
Picture a hose of water. The water (electrons) takes a long time to get from one end to the other... but the effect of putting water in one end is immediately seen at the other end (within reason).
With AC, electrons never really gain ground in a balanced load situation. Back and forth and
Re:Speed of light vs. speed of electrons in wire? (Score:2, Informative)
Slightly more correctly, the drift velocity of electrons in standard copper cable is on the order of (tens of) cm/s. Actual electron velocity is close to c (as they bounce around in a cable), and electron drift velocities can be on the order of 10^7 m/s in some media.
Re:Speed of light vs. speed of electrons in wire? (Score:2)
Re:Speed of light vs. speed of electrons in wire? (Score:5, Informative)
Normal signal: ____----____----____----
0 1 0 1 0 1
New hawtness: _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
010101010101010101010101
Both took the same amount of time to travel down the pipe. But one conveyed 4x the information.
Re:Speed of light vs. speed of electrons in wire? (Score:2, Insightful)
So, you still have the same "speed" but you have way higher modulation than what is possible through a traditional chip.
So, if you have two highways, both going the same speed, but one is filled with dinky cars and one is filled with transport trucks....in which highway can you have more total cars get through?
So the data gets there in the same length of time, but you have data sending/arr
Re:Speed of light vs. speed of electrons in wire? (Score:5, Informative)
Optical interconnects alleviate many of these problems. With a laser, the ramp up time is significantly shorter, there's no capacitance in the system, and it is far less prone to interference. So, on a 100 GHz optical link you can multiplex 100 1GHz pins (essentially running a P4's FSB on two wires instead of something like 180), thereby significantly reducing the pin count. Or you could run the pins 100 times as fast, meaning much less processor waiting on RAM or bus data.
Re:Speed of light vs. speed of electrons in wire? (Score:5, Informative)
But that's not really the problem. Transmit time is still quite low (I've heard 1ns per 6 in of trace on a board). Latency isn't really the problem. The problem is -- how fast can you change the signal? That's bandwidth. Here electrical conductors suffer because of parasitic capacitance and inductance, skin effects, reflections, induced current from nearby conductors, and a whole host of other signal integrity issues. It gets worse the longer the channel is and the more things you have connected to it. If you're wondering why the MP Pentium 4s have been on a 100MHz QDR front side bus since they were released, this is why. It's also why even point-to-point interconnect like AMDs has only recently broken 1 GHz.
Optics don't really have this issue. Two fiber optic cables next to each other don't interfere with each other. You don't have to overcome the capacitance of the channel to change from one value to the next. You just send photons of one frequency, and then switch to the next. As fast as you can switch is how much bandwidth you can get.
Alright, I'm not really liking this explanation anymore. To just directly answer your question: the advantage is 100 GHz interconnect in a way that could potentially be built into chips.
Re:Speed of light vs. speed of electrons in wire? (Score:2)
What really is moving - the electrons or the hole? (Score:2)
His name was Dr. Troy Soos and worked for Los Alamos for a while. Then he decided to write baseball murder mysteries (apparently that makes more money than being a research scientiest).
Here is a link to his books:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1575 664550/qid=1130379198/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/103-264399 1-8895002?v=glance&s=books [amazon.com]
Oddly enough he still te
Re:Speed of light vs. speed of electrons in wire? (Score:2)
Re:Speed of light vs. speed of electrons in wire? (Score:4, Informative)
You can build what's called an "aritficial transmission line" in just such a manner. It simulates the effect of a much longer pair of wires for lab purposes.
Re:Speed of light vs. speed of electrons in wire? (Score:4, Informative)
Now for the fun part - What is the velocity of propagation?
For frequencies were the inductive reactance of the conductor is significantly larger than the resistance of that conductor at that frequency (think skin effect), then the velocity of propagation is c divided by the square root of the effective relative dielectric constant. This is often referred to as an LC transmission line since propagation is dominated by the series inductance and shunt capaitance. LC lines have a propagation velocity independent of frequency (at least to the first order). As an example, coaxial cable with a solid polyethylene dielectric will have a propagation velocity of 0.66c, which would be valid from a few hundred kHz to several GHz.
When the the conductor resistance is greater than the inductive reactance, then the line becomes an RC line where the "propagation velocity" is dependent on frequency (dispersive) and the time for a transition to propagate is proportional to the square of the line length. The effective "propagation velocity" is going to be a lot less than c. Turns out that the interconnects on chips are RC lines - and it is often necessary to insert inverters on a line to speed things up (recall that propagation time varies with the square of the line length) - a good rule of thumb is to space the inverters so the the propagation delay equals the gate delay.
The RC problem is why loading coils were put on phone lines - the inductive reactance of the coils is larger than the resistance and the line becomes an LC. The loading coils are bad news for DSL - and an unloaded line looks like an LC line at the frequencies used by the DSL modems.
A good reference for this is High Speed Digital Design, a Handbook of Black Magic by Johnson and Graham.
Re:Speed of light vs. speed of electrons in wire? (Score:2)
Re:Speed of light vs. speed of electrons in wire? (Score:2)
Re:Speed of light vs. speed of electrons in wire? (Score:2)
Heat.
I could be wrong, but I would think an optical chip would produce less heat since it would have less resistance and would scale better in power consumption.
I'm not engineer so I could be wrong about that assumption.
Re:Speed of light vs. speed of electrons in wire? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Speed of light vs. speed of electrons in wire (Score:2)
Re:I can't wait until Intel makes a chip with it (Score:2, Funny)
At least then you'll never need to get up to get rid of that monitor tan and you can fix a grilled cheese sammich at the same time!
BRRRRRRRRiiiiilliant!!
Re:I can't wait until Intel makes a chip with it (Score:2)
Re:I'm still betting on qubits (Score:5, Informative)
That being said, the problems that can be solved by quantum computers tend to be the ones that would take a regular CPU until the end of the universe to perform (break strong encryption, large traveling salesman problems, etc.). At some point, if we can make a quantum computer compact enough, we might end up having quantum co-processors built into out PCs but we'll probably never see the CPU of our PC replaced by a quantum computer.
The tech being discussed in the article would be directly applicable to making generic PCs run faster (though it could also have the potential to improve communication speeds with a hypothetical quantum computer as well). Another tech that will probably be leveraged to make generic systems faster is the replacement of silicon in computer chips with diamond. Since diamond can handle vastly higher temperatures than silicon, without melting, it is theoretically possible to push the clock speed on a diamond based CPU much higher than on today's silicon CPUs.
-GameMaster
mod parent up! (Score:2)
Re:I'm still betting on qubits (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I'm still betting on qubits (Score:2)
One Question: (Score:2)
Re:With great bandwidth comes great responsibility (Score:2, Insightful)
Climbing the corporate ladder != Innovation
Innovation?! C'mon! This is a culture in which people really do use words like "synergy" and "value-added" with straight faces! I know; I've worked with them!
Each time I've worked in a corporate environment, I've been thoroughly appauled. People don't pursue good ideas! Rather, they make sure that they have all the right "check marks" on their "report cards." At the last place I worked, there were so many half-assed useless projects lying around -- wa