Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

MIT, Nanovation to Partner on Photonic Research

Roblimo posted more than 14 years ago | from the next-revolutionary-technology? dept.

Technology 86

Tirisfal writes "The Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Nanovation Technologies Inc. today announced plans to establish a world-class center dedicated to the research and prototyping of photonic technologies, a 21st-century field that will make communications hundreds of times faster. Check out the press release here."

cancel ×

86 comments

Re:The future of slashdot:drivel from idiots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1346095)

What do you mean, "the future". I can't imagine a larger collection of idiots on the internet than the people who visit Slashdot nowadays. Reading comments is pretty much a worthless activity, so this will probably be the last time I ever post anything, and I've been posting pretty regularly since this place started. It seems like idiots move in swarms and destroy everything good on the internet like a bunch of locusts.

Re:Bah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1346096)

Not to mention non-human ones as well:

PHILLY PHANATIC NAKED AND PETRIFIED!

Re:*FOO* (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1346097)

you will have to stand if you were petrified that way.

You don't even know what a Haiku is. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1346098)

The 5-7-5 thing isn't important. What you wrote was bastardized American haiku, it throws out the rules that matter, and keeps the one that doesn't.

Um... "revolutionize"/"ise"... (-1 offtopic) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1346099)

If you're going to be a "spelling nazi," you should know that English has many well-known dialect variations between "The Queen's English" of the U.K. and the language spoken by Americans. Both "ise" and "ize" forms are proper.

Considering the article is published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, I'd favor (favour) the American form of the word, too.

**RACIST HUMOUR** (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1346100)

That was an EVIL, INSULTING remark!

Did you hear that??

"you will have to stand if you were petrified that way."

Why do we TOLERATE that racist humour?? Come on. That shit is about as lame as, "You will wind up in jail if you are African American," "If you are a Jew you are selfish and a doctor," or "You spend your time oppressing indiginous peoples if you are white"! We don't stand for racist crap like that, why is it okay when it's anti-statue????

SOCIALIST PHOTONS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1346101)

MIT birthed a demon called GNU, now with $90 million of the PEOPLE'S MONEY, they are going to TRIUMPH over FACISTS everywhere by creating the PEOPLE'S POPULAR PHOTOTON LIBERATION FRONT (PPPLF). Led by RICHARD STALLMAN in conjuntion with AARON SPELLING, it will be science at it's most endearing: pouty teenagers with sideburns spouting PART PROPAGANDA!

VIVA LA REVOLUTION! LIVIN LA VIDA LOCA!

Sad as fuck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1346102)

You have a society for that kinda bollocks? Christ you yanks are fucking sad!

Re:FIRE PHOTONS! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1346103)

Do you only watch star trek all day?

Re:Photons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1346104)

would you ever consider your thesis was possibly incorrect, or could not be proven at that time?

FIRE PHOTONS! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1346105)

I guess this gives a whole new meaning to FIRE PHOTONS!

THAT WAS NOT A HAIKU (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1346106)

As a member of the Haiku Society of America, let me be the first to say:

that is NOT a Haiku in ANY sense of the word.

It's also NOT open source. Boooo.

Where's the LOVE? Where's the Natalie Portman?

Re:Cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1346107)

WOW!!!! You are so cool you got first. I want to be just like you, will you teach me the sercret of getting first post, I won't waste it like you however, I'll put my super-leet k-rad hacker messages there!!!

Photons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1346108)

I think you're all missing the point. Photonic technologies like this are not possible and have proven to be impossible.

The wavelength of any visible light is too long for photonic effects to come into play. Trust me, I did my doctoral thesis on this. If you want to talk about quantum effects, that's different, but a photonic approach is sure to be a waste of time and taxpayer money.

Re:Amazing Electrons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1346109)

I don't believe orbital satellite latency is due to the speed of light. Light travels at ~186,282 miles per second. That means you get 1ms of latency for every 186.282 miles. Orbital satellites are not high enough to have substantial latency due to distance. It is more likely that the latency is electrical in nature - the birds just need faster processors :)

So how long... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1346110)

How long until we get the torpedoes? ("Keptin, she canna take much more o' this!")

Re:The future of slashdot:drivel from idiots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1346111)

Just because I have 80 karma and you have none

when did anyonymous coward start racking up karma?

Re:WTF are you talking about? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1346112)

yes, so we can work on applied eugenics and hopefully weed out any future cocksuckers like yourself.

if it wasn't for "johns" like us, your mama wouldn't be able to put food on your table, even at west virginia prices...BEEYATCH.

i want to hear more socialist stories (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1346113)

enough photonic open source pierce brosnon, i want to hear "bill gates sacrifices babies" "steve jobs feeds aborted fetuses to employees" etc etc etc

Re:WTF are you talking about? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1346114)

i think the point of the comment is that we seem locked into this "higher bandwidth and cpu speed will save us all" when really we should also look into optimising and downsizing. I find it hard to beleive windows 98 is that large because it needs to be. If you limited the amount of memory and cpu speed, im sure developers would build much more effecient OS's and applications. But alas they feel no need to with 10 gig or hard space and an athlon. I have had to drop size in favour of pure speed because im in the telecommunications business and time (and lost calls) is money. No mallocs for me thank you very much. :P Brad

we are getting nowhere. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1346115)

yeah ok, we'll have 1000 times faster communications, but games and applications and traffic will be 10,000 bigger. Its not about making things faster, is making them more optimized.
We'll never be satisfied, we always want more and more, we should be more concern about taking care of planet earth.
It will be the same always, faster stuff, but we are never happy with it, why not plant 1,000,000,000 trees?

The future of slashdot:drivel from idiots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1346116)

your post officially qualifies as "drivel from idiots". if you don't know anything about photonics, shut up. you don't have to post on every topi

fatal flaw in your satire (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1346117)

a real speechmaker would never say 'down with innovation', they would say 'youre just like hitler!' ps. lots of technology comes from non-elitists, it is a simple fact of history and u better learn it if you want to keep 'innovation' healthy.

Bah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1346118)

This has absolutetly nothing to do with petrified cheerleaders.

Re:The future of slashdot:drivel from idiots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1346119)

Just because I have 80 karma and you have none doesn't mean you have to get all pissy. BITE MY ASS BITCH!!!!!

follow the path of our ancestors (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1346120)

they were not totally stupid you know.

Re:Amazing Electrons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1346121)

> probably the most complex method of > communication you could do with it would be > Morse-code type on-off communication. Maybe someone will invent a machine which through some form of binary computation would convert the on-off into something meaningful to humans.

MIT and my throbbing cock to partner (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1346122)

Any jack fuck can give money to an MIT professor and then write a press release about their great "partnership with MIT". It's done too often, and it annoys me.

Re:Bah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1346123)

Dude, how many times do I have to tell you guys that petrified women are way inferior to alive ones?!

Re:Bah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1346124)

Let's not forget that that include both FEMALE *AND* MALE cheerleaders... we gotta be politically correct here, eh?

Re:WTF are you talking about? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1346125)

You really get off on saying "drivel" don't you?

That's okay, I get off on Natalie Portman.

Re:WTF are you talking about? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1346126)

yes, so we can work on applied eugenics and hopefully weed out any future cocksuckers like yourself.

*FOO* (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1346127)

As a petrified woman, I take serious offense to that! We're NO less than our fleshy associates. And I'd thank you not to spread LIES, and DISCRIMINATION, and STEREOTYPES.

Join the PWADL (Petrified Women Anti-Defamation Leauge) and help *END* degrading comments like this. We statue women of the world will not stand for insults.

The Evil Of Capitalisim (0)

JohnL (7512) | more than 14 years ago | (#1346128)

From the web page:
Under MIT's standard collaboration agreement, MIT will be free to publish the research results. The straightforward intellectual property arrangement provides for joint ownership of patentable inventions and improvements created jointly by MIT and Nanovation personnel, or by Nanovation personnel making significant use of MIT facilities. Intellectual property developed solely by MIT personnel will be owned by MIT. Nanovation, in turn, will own intellectual property developed solely by Nanovation personnel who have not made significant use of MIT facilities. The company has the right to a nonexclusive royalty-free license or an exclusive royalty-bearing license, limited to the MIT research that they have sponsored.

How dare they spend $90 million dollars (stolen from the Workers and Peasants) to steal The People's Ideas! So-called "intellectual property" is the most insidious of all evils, the idea that a Greedy Capitalistic Corporation can infuse a Noble Research Institute with Blood Money, and then own the results of that research! Down with Innovation! Four Legs Good, Two Legs Bad!

--------------------

LIGHT, THE UNIVERSE AND EVERYTHING - A HAIKU (0)

opensourceman (124101) | more than 14 years ago | (#1346129)

for all that we know
the universe could cease to
exist at any



thank you.

Couple thoughts... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1346130)

1. This is the future. Know it. Love it.
2. This is not Quantum computing (thats the future too, just far out and weird). It is MEMS.
3. See a real live MEMS here

http://www.memsrus.com/cronos/figs/MOEMSfs.pdf

4. Investors: a new industry is being created -- it will change the world, again.

5. 15 year-olds who think the internet is a legacy wall -- MEMS (in the 60s it was "plastics").

For the past 50 years weve been shrinking electronic devices. Now we begin shrinking mechanical devices. Combine that with light and mirrors and the world looks new and diffrent: Star Wars projectile 3D holograms, light-based computers, space propulsion devices.. use your imagination its a new world upon us.

Re:hundreds of times faster... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1346131)

That was excessively pedantic. Please refer to the following excerpt from the definition of "fast" in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary.

  • 3 a : characterized by quick motion, operation, or effect: (1) : moving or able to move rapidly : SWIFT (2) : taking a comparatively short time (3) : imparting quickness of motion (4) : accomplished quickly (5) : agile of mind; especially : quick to learn [Emphasis mine]

In case you've been under a rock for the past five years, the word "faster," in the sense of the italicized definition above, is commonly used to refer to higher bandwidth, because transferring data takes a comparatively short time with high bandwidth connections. For example, read the sentence, "My Internet connection at work is faster than my connection at home." If you think this is improper use of the word faster, you are deluded. It's not like the poster said the signal propogates faster.

Re:Addendum: why you can't use x-rays. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1346132)

Let me see if I can explain what some of photonics is about. It's not my field, but people down the hall from me do it. I'll focus on what are called photonic crystals ( they were mentioned in the article) Essentially, about 15 years ago it was found that if one considered the right combination of materials the classical formalism for the light (photons) going through it becomes analogous to the formalism of quantum mechanics as applied to conductors, and semiconductors. What does this imply? It means that potentially one could use photons instead of electrons in semiconductors. In other words one could create the equivalent of switches, transistors, gates and other marvels that would use photons instead of electrons. The effects mentioned above about absorption and such no longer have such a drastic effect which makes the study very attractive. The reason these problems don't arrise is in the reason they work (i.e. the QM analogy... long story). Where does the field stand? In its infancy. There are only a handfull of groups around the world studying this. Candidate materials are still searched, and none has been found to be ideal yet, or at least cost-effective. In fact, only very simple switches have been theoretically designed. The holy grail of this is, of course, the transistor. A final note though, the photons don't travel at "c" (the speed of light in a vacuum) because they are in a material. The speed of light through any medium is reduced from that in vacuum. In these materials one is looking at a factor of 1/10 to 1/2 the speed. The benefits are in the possible device speeds (i.e. switches), device sizes (nanoscale) and power consumption. For online References: goto to Google.com and search for "photonic crystals" without the quotes.

negative mass (1)

crayz (1056) | more than 14 years ago | (#1346133)

I hear that at this very moment Calista Flockhart and Kate Moss are working fast and furious toward achieving the ultimate goal of a negative mass, causing instantaneous ejaculations in the approximately 3 guys on this planet who actually find those freaks of nature sexy.

But if faster than light travel winds up being the result of sticking your finger down your throat, I for one will be surprised.

yes comrade (1)

crayz (1056) | more than 14 years ago | (#1346134)

come, let us read "The Communist Manifesto" and "The Jungle" together until we both go blind!

I am disgusted by the Slashdotters who pretend to be good socialists when you talk about this "Lee-nooks" thing, but then you see they are still capitalist swine when you try to discuss political socialism.

Come comrade, let us move to China, a land with true freedom!

"I am looking for the nuclear wessel"

I find it a little bit amuzing (1)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 14 years ago | (#1346135)




That Slashdot has chosen to parrot the press release in using words like "21st century fields".

Of course something that started development in the year 2000, with promising result that may take 2 to 5 years to realize, will CERTAINLY be something from the 21st century field !

Unless someone has successfully built and tested a time machine, I do not think we can invent something from today onwards and call it a "18th century invention" or "12 century BC discovery".

I hope that slashdot from now on will not parrot _every_word_ from press releases it receives.

Making use of intelligent phrases, yes please; Parroting tired and mind-numbing cliches, no thanks!


hmm (1)

Bocephus (6835) | more than 14 years ago | (#1346136)

As cool as this sounds, I'd like higher-capacity routers for handling those nifty multi-wavelength fiber signals, please. I feel so spoiled with my pair of T3s, but yeesh...

Hmm ... few questions (1)

Sleeper (7713) | more than 14 years ago | (#1346137)

I just wonder, who are these people? I mean Nanovation. I keep an eye on them for sometime already.

Firsto of all it is a startup. With no real product yet. And what is interesting they raised $56M from private investors. And this is with no product yet. I mean, how much do startups in San Jose have in the beginning? $5-10M (correct me if I'm wrong).

They have facilities near (may be right on) the campus of Northwestern Univ. My freind went there and was not very impressed. So they do some semiconductors, some polymers (hired some people from NU, IBM Almaden research center).

The stuff they talk about in ther PR is not here yet. PBG exists mostly on paper (and by the way best work in this area done by Caltech, Princeton and another University I don't remember right now). It was proposed by Prof. Yablonovich from UCLA (but they use it mostly for micorwaves) in the beginning of 90's.

And MIT. Being great school for science and engineering and all. They haven't done much in photonics. So they have Lincoln Labs (mostly micorwaves and it was not even mentioned) so they have a professor who wrote book on PBG (sorry, photonic bandgap materials), but that was mosly theory. It's all quite far from real device implementation. (Point: it is not the stuff you make money on, yet and it is not quite clear that you ever will)

(redundant:) So, Nanovation raised $56M and $20M of this they give to MIT basically to start almost form the scratch in the field where others already have something done.

... And the money from startup with no real product. And hellova lot money.

I don't understand it.

Re:Addendum: why you can't use x-rays. (1)

Christopher Thomas (11717) | more than 14 years ago | (#1346138)

Points noted; however, the issues that I raise still present problems. While the chance of a photon having an unwanted interaction may indeed be quite low, the scaling rules that I mentioned will still apply, producing a limit at some point (though perhaps higher than soft UV).

"Nanoscale", though, I'm skeptical of. Double-digit nanometres is well into the X-ray regime. Single-digit nanometres is worse. How do the researchers you cite plan to overcome the severe problems encountered with photons of this high energy? Or am I making too drastic assumptions about the scale of the devices being talked about?

Umm... (1)

Christopher Thomas (11717) | more than 14 years ago | (#1346139)

I think you're all missing the point. Photonic technologies like this are not possible and have proven to be impossible.
The wavelength of any visible light is too long for photonic effects to come into play. Trust me, I did my doctoral thesis on this.


Umm... The fact that a respectable university is funding this and that I have heard the technologies the article discusses mentioned by other research groups over the years implies that what the article is calling "photonics" and what you consider "photonics" are not the same thing.

Remember, the article was not written by someone well-versed in the "correct" terms for things. By "photonics", they probably mean "nifty research areas x, y, and z that have to do with light". Read further into the article for more details on what they're actually studying.

Re:Bear in mind the wavelength limit. (1)

CodeShark (17400) | more than 14 years ago | (#1346140)

they tend to dissipate considerably less heat than (conventional) electronic devices. It may also turn out that it is easier to build three-dimensional optical devices than it is to build three-dimensional integrated circuits (both have been done; ICs are just very difficult with current processes).

Both of these are the exact reason (if my understanding of the technology is correct from the white papers I have read) why optical chips should be faster:

  1. The lowered heat dissipation would allow smaller gate sizes without crosstalk/circuit failure becoming serious problem, and
  2. the ability to go three dimensional shortens the actual circuit pathways.
  3. An optical circuit based bus in the computer would remove the bandwidth of the bus as a major bottleneck/expense.
By the way, in order to consider the ramifications of three dimensional circuitry/density consider this: today's best CPU's have circuit densities that are orders of magnitude greater than the human brain. But the human brain still has a higher level of interconnectivity by those same orders of magnitude. And while the "biochemical" computer in our heads is not as fast, it seems to be the most reprogrammible, flexible concept processor in our currently known universe.

Re:Amazing ParticleWaves... (1)

eriks (31863) | more than 14 years ago | (#1346141)

...scientists who discovered this doubt very much it will ever be useful for communication. (For one, it probably won't work across lightyears, and for two, probably the most complex method of communication you could do with it would be Morse-code type on-off communication.)

I don't mean to split particles here... (ahem) but isn't that basically the kind of digital communication we have now? Streams of ones and zeroes? If an entagled "particle" can have its "state" changed and it's "twin" - existing somewhere else - mirrors the state change, then you have a bit that can be turned on and off, right? Just checkin.

Re:More sources of research (1)

robang (35408) | more than 14 years ago | (#1346142)

There's an even bigger photonics research program right across the river from MIT at Boston University and its been around for over two years. In that time it has spun off three companies related to the area of photonics. It is even one of the largests institutions focused on refining the blue laser. Stop talking about MIT all the time and start talking other not so famous schools!

Re:hundreds of times faster... (1)

tono (38883) | more than 14 years ago | (#1346143)

Exactly how will they make it hundreds of times faster, breeching the speed of light is indeed an astounding accomplishment. I think/hope the poster meant it in regards to bandwidth. If this is the case, sign me up. I hate my 56k modem. :P

Step in the right direction... (1)

HydroCarbon10 (40784) | more than 14 years ago | (#1346144)

This would be a major leap if light based computers became feasable. Currently we are using electricity generated from fossil fuels who's energy originally came from the sun. Think about it, light comes to earth, plants absorb it, plants turn to oil, we burn oil for energy, and we use that energy for what...a light bulb. Too bad its not yet economical to wire houses with fiber optics for the lighting (and computing :-) ), with the light source being a collector mounted on the roof.

nanotech could use such a partnership (1)

paulydavis (91113) | more than 14 years ago | (#1346145)

i think this is the way to spend research money. i am a fan of goverment research (ie internet) but were private sector will pick upthe tab the better for the taxpayers pockets. the money clinton has suggested for nanotech research would be nice if instead of the goverment putting up the money a partnership like this one existed

Re:hundreds of times faster... (1)

CvD (94050) | more than 14 years ago | (#1346146)

Yeah, I mean this is all froody & stuff, but with QWest already being able to transfer the entire Library of Congress in no appreciable amount of time from the east coast to the west coast, I don't so much see the need for even higher speed backbones as for the upgrading of the local loop. We're seeing quite a bit of that now with high speed cable modems and DSL. It seems like these are a big jump over the gradual increments in yer average phone modem that we've always had.

I'm not saying this kinda research is bad, but what's the point if that bandwidth is not being utilized because the local loop is still so slow? Yes, I know, when you bunch em all toghether you get formiddable bandwidth, but that is also a reason why there should also be money invested in things that utilize bandwidth better, like MBONE.

Cheers!

Costyn.

Re:Amazing Electrons (1)

jareds (100340) | more than 14 years ago | (#1346147)

I'm fairly sure that split electrons, even theoretically, can't be used for FTL communication. Tachyons have never been observed, and no one has any idea how to create them. However, IANAPP (I am not a particle physicist).

You're quite right that latency will be a problem if we colonize other planets. The speed of light is high enough to solve almost any latency problem on this planet by laying cable, but it is already a problem with satellite connections.

communications nothing... (1)

Pufferfish (100833) | more than 14 years ago | (#1346148)

I want optical computer chips! motherboards with fiber optic channels instead of wires!

Photons move faster than electrons (unless you use a superconductor, which is way more expensive than using light). So if you replace the electrons flying around inside your chip with photons flying around, you get a faster chip. I'm guessing it would use less power too (heck, just hook it up to your roof: light comes in, you control the flow and put it directly into your system, instead of converting it to electricity, and then back).

Optical computers are going to be the final limit to how fast we can get stuff unless some radically new designs are made in the near future. We're already rubbing up against the physical limit for transistors...now we'll rub up against the physical limit for the speed of particles flying around inside the chip.

Instead of Moore's law, we'll have another law: The speed of a chip is directly proportional to it's size. I suspect we'll eventually find the best architecture for any one given task. Once you get to the limits of size and speed, plus you've found the best architecture for the task at hand, the only way to make your system faster is to make it bigger (or write better software...)

First Things First (1)

superkorn (101469) | more than 14 years ago | (#1346149)

Let's first convince everyone that colonizing other planets is feasible and see it done, then worry about quick long range communication :)

Re:Ultra funky tech (1)

Fenmere, the Worm (103037) | more than 14 years ago | (#1346150)

The sheer wierdness of it makes any papers you can find worth reading.

Truly. I'm having fun just imagining what "photonic" bussing would look like. I see a chunk of crystal, maybe, that's bevelled in just the right way to get individual photons where they need to go, or a network of these crystals.

And that probably the least of the wierdness.

hundreds of times faster... (1)

JustShootMe (122551) | more than 14 years ago | (#1346151)

And I hope make it a little more difficult for the feds to wiretap...


If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.

Questions (1)

Heisenbug (122836) | more than 14 years ago | (#1346152)

I don't know how university research teams work, so there are a few things I am curious about.

What kind of opportunities will this bring to an undergrad at MIT? How sensational would an undergrad have to be to have an important place in the project?

The article says that discoveries made solely by MIT affiliates (or whatever) are owned by MIT. What does this mean in practice? What exactly does MIT do with a patent it posesses?

Thanks,
Jack

Re:You don't even know what a Haiku is. (1)

opensourceman (124101) | more than 14 years ago | (#1346153)

oh. oh well.

Re:THAT WAS NOT A HAIKU (1)

opensourceman (124101) | more than 14 years ago | (#1346154)

not a haiku? how? 5-7-5...

natalie portman:
natalie portman
magic petrification
i have a statue


open source:
sorry... it's my attempt at variety. teehee.

Re:THAT WAS NOT A HAIKU (1)

opensourceman (124101) | more than 14 years ago | (#1346155)

lol

Re:Nanovation Tech + MIT Brains (1)

PG (125417) | more than 14 years ago | (#1346156)

A quantum computer would not be the end of cryptography. Such a beast would reduce the complexity of a brute force search for a symmetric key by a "mere" square root. All you'd need to do is double your key length to attain the same level of security. Quantum computers are a neat idea, but this infinite-number-of-calculations-instantaneously bit is just plain wrong.

Re:Nanovation Tech + MIT Brains (1)

PG (125417) | more than 14 years ago | (#1346157)

This is incorrect. Shor's quatum factoring algorithm achives a polynomial time bound for factoring large numbers. I believe the square root improvment is grovers algorithm for general inverse problems.

I think we're talking about two different things. :-)

Cracking a public key system like RSA would be trivial with a quantum computer because, as you say, you can do it in polynomial time.

You don't get the same kind of performance gains when breaking a symmetric cipher (DES, IDEA, any of the AES candidates, etc). In those cases, the best quantum algorithm just reduces the amount of time by a square root. (Maybe this is Grover's algorithm? I'm not famliar with it.) Still a huge difference, but it wouldn't be the end of cryptography.

I have a question regarding the really dumb post you replied to. Did the article even discuss quantum mechanics?

Heh, I didn't read it. Just saw his goofy comments and had to get out of lurk mode for a few seconds.

Re:Ultra funky tech (1)

gwalla (130286) | more than 14 years ago | (#1346158)

Fiber optics, with splitters that "sluice off" photons of certain frequencies and/or polarizations. Scientific American had an article on it a couple years back, I'm not so certain about the state of the art now.
---

Re:Amazing Electrons (1)

gwalla (130286) | more than 14 years ago | (#1346159)

If memory serves, it HAS been proven that change in one "linked" particle can simultaneously cause change instantaneously in its "twinned" particle, but if memory serves the scientists who discovered this doubt very much it will ever be useful for communication. (For one, it probably won't work across lightyears, and for two, probably the most complex method of communication you could do with it would be Morse-code type on-off communication.

Umm...last time I checked, binary was on-off, and it seems like you can do a lot with binary...

The problem with using twinned photons, IIRC, is that there really isn't any information going from one to the other. Observing one doesn't produce a change in the other, it just predicts the other's state. Think of it this way: you shoot a helium nucleus at some sort of splitter. It splits into two nuclei. You then observe one of the nuclei. If it's deutrium, you know the other is tritium, and vice versa (assuming no neutrons excaped or anything like that, I doubt you could actually split a helium nucleus like this but bear with me for the sake of argument). It's the same idea. If one of the photons turns out to have right spin, the other must have left spin and must have already had left spin. It is just a deduction based on what you already know about the system.


---

The future of slashdot:drivel from idiots (1)

rambone (135825) | more than 14 years ago | (#1346160)

your post officially qualifies as "drivel from idiots". if you don't know anything about photonics, shut up. you don't have to post on every topic.

WTF are you talking about? (1)

rambone (135825) | more than 14 years ago | (#1346161)

We'll never be satisfied, we always want more and more,

So i guess we should stop all research into photonics now, right?

Thanks for your drivel.

A step in the right direction (1)

r-jae (138803) | more than 14 years ago | (#1346162)

Let me just say how pleased I am that once again, the United States is leading the way in finding better and more efficient means of connecting the civilised world.

Obviously it's to some monetary or strategic benefit of Nanovation to provide this 90 mil, but I am glad companies like this are leading the way.

I just hope this technology will find it's way overseas. Often, a new technology is developed in the US, Japan or in Europe, and it stops there.

Let's hope it's not the case with this.

Amazing Electrons (1)

Dragon218 (139996) | more than 14 years ago | (#1346163)

Why don't they study how to implement the use of the strange proberties of split electrons...or Tachyons (faster than light particles, theoretically). As proven by the space program and Arthur C. Clark, Light just isn't fast enough anymore.

So, although a light connection would be fast in small range connections (earth based), it just won't do in long range connections.

Just some humble thoughts.

Re:Amazing Electrons (1)

Arcanix (140337) | more than 14 years ago | (#1346164)

Ummmm....Usually when I download data it is located somewhere on Earth....

More sources of research (2)

Hrunting (2191) | more than 14 years ago | (#1346165)

Lehigh University [lehigh.edu] , my alma mater, and Princeton [princeton.edu] have been researching photonics for quite some time. Lehigh, being the engineering school that it is, has been focusing on the material considerations of actually building photonics systems and developing any new materials that will make it work properly. Princeton has an entire web site [princeton.edu] devoted to their research in photonics.

The field has been around for quite some time, so there's a lot of information on the web about it. Certainly, MIT's partnership will help push things along, but it is only a very small piece of the research puzzle.

Re:Amazing Electrons (2)

Windigo The Feral (N (6107) | more than 14 years ago | (#1346166)

Dragon218 dun said:

Why don't they study how to implement the use of the strange proberties of split electrons...or Tachyons (faster than light particles, theoretically). As proven by the space program and Arthur C. Clark, Light just isn't fast enough anymore.

Well, unless and until someone comes up with a Theory of Everything that both meshes up with quantum mechanics and Einstein, and also allows FTL travel...I think we might be stuck with c as the speed limit for the observable universe. :P

If memory serves, it HAS been proven that change in one "linked" particle can simultaneously cause change instantaneously in its "twinned" particle, but if memory serves the scientists who discovered this doubt very much it will ever be useful for communication. (For one, it probably won't work across lightyears, and for two, probably the most complex method of communication you could do with it would be Morse-code type on-off communication.)

As far as tachyons go...as someone noted, firstly, assuming they exist at all nobody has any earthly idea on how to create them. (This is, in part, because nobody really knows how to make matter with negative mass--which, at least according to our understanding right now, would require something with negative mass because once one hits c unless you're massless or have negative mass you have infinite mass--wanna birth a universe, anyone? ;) Also, Einstein's formulae for the theory of relativity, at least for mass and time dilation, go REAL funky once the magic barrier of c is passed--I've played about with stuff over the value of c in the equasions for shits and giggles, and you get odd answers like, oh, imaginary time and imaginary mass...maybe you really DO end up spawning a baby universe :).

In fact, if memory serves tachyons (at least the predicted existence of them) are what ended up doing in one of the first superstring theories (which had a solution requiring the universe to hae 26 dimensions); most of the newer superstring theory flavours (including M-theory, which is sort of a "superset of sets of superstring solutions" and factors in an 11-dimensional universe of which there are six solution sets involving 10-dimensional solutions) do not predict tachyons (weird stuff like photinos and quarkinos (supersymmetric "twins" of quarks and photons, only the photinos are the "mass" particles and quarkinos carry force), sure--weird enough stuff is predicted that at least one fellow wrote a novel called "Moonseed" of which the major part of the plot line involves VERY funky subatomic particles predicted in some flavours of superstring theory--but no tachyons) and in fact the fact the 26-dimensional flavour of superstring theory required tachyons is considered to be a fatal flaw in the theory.

Now, if you can find a way to create negative mass, I think we can maybe lick that whole FTL-communication thing. Not to mention find a way to make stable wormholes, invent FTL travel, and find out whether black holes really DO become baby universes if they don't evaporate away due to Hawking radiation :) I'm more than certain you'd win a Nobel Prize at the least, not to mention give science-fiction writers wet dreams for the next millennium :) Till we do, or we find a better theory in which FTL travel works without breaking time or mass, we might be screwed though :P

Um, they're talking about more mundane photonics. (2)

Christopher Thomas (11717) | more than 14 years ago | (#1346167)

Quantum physicists have found that certain quantum particles, such as photons, can be "linked" to other photons, regardless of physical distance (relative to three dimensions, anyway.) A change in state in one photon results in the same change of state in the other photon, instantaneously, even if they are light-years apart.

What you describe is one of the standard proposals for FTL communications. It is indeed interesting; however, if you glance at the later parts of the article, you can see that they're talking about more mundane applications of photons:

  • Better widgets with which to build fully or nearly-fully optical networks. These include:
    • Better optical amplifiers (fiber bandwith is limited by gain-bandwidth product of the repeaters).
    • Better transcievers. Current coupling schemes between optical and electrical systems could use improvement.

  • Optical "semiconductors". These are materials that behave for light the way that semiconductors behave for electricity. They are a promising foundation for purely-optical computers, and research has been ongoing for many years now.


I hope this was of interest. Purely optical computing is neat, but would be less useful now than it would have been a few years ago. More on this in another message.

Bear in mind the wavelength limit. (2)

Christopher Thomas (11717) | more than 14 years ago | (#1346168)

The ramification of those circuits is that we could essentially have CPU's 10-50x faster than current chips, with much lower energy consumption as well.

Bear in mind that your computing element size will be limited by the wavelength of the light you're using, though. While waveguide effects might let you push this a bit, remember that the feature size of current chips is already into the "extreme ultravoilet" wavelength range. The wavelength of an electron (at normal energies) is much shorter, making the feature size limits of electrical devices much smaller than those of light-based devices.

This doesn't mean light-based devices are useless; on the contrary, as was pointed out, they tend to dissipate considerably less heat than (conventional) electronic devices. It may also turn out that it is easier to build three-dimensional optical devices than it is to build three-dimensional integrated circuits (both have been done; ICs are just very difficult with current processes). However, I'm skeptical of claims that optical devices will _definitely_ be faster than even the best electrical devices.

Addendum: why you can't use x-rays. (2)

Christopher Thomas (11717) | more than 14 years ago | (#1346169)

Bear in mind that your computing element size will be limited by the wavelength of the light you're using, though.

Oh yes - before you suggest just using a smaller wavelength of light, that runs into two problems, both due to the fact that your photons wind up having very high energies.

  • High brighness needed.
    In order to carry a signal, within a given sample period you need to have on the order of n^2 photons, if you are trying to measure n signal levels. This is due to the statistics of measurement errors. The least painful case uses a binary signal, with only two levels (on and off). However, you still need to send between two and four photons per clock to be reasonably sure of detecting "1"s. The problem is that as you reduce feature size, you are both increasing the clock rate and increasing the energy of the photons used. Power dissipation per communications stream goes up as the inverse square of the wavelength. As you will be packing more communications lines on to the chip, your actual power dissipation will be even worse than that. Thus, you rapidly run in to energy limits when reducing the wavelength.
  • Destruction of your material.
    Visible light is about as energetic as you can get without damaging chemical bonds in at least some materials. Many materials can resist higher-energy photons, but many can't (think of plastics that turn yellow in the UV light from the sun and fluorescent light bulbs). When you start moving into hard UV and soft X-rays, the problem rapidly gets worse. Your energy per photon is considerably higher than the energy stored in the chemical bonds in your material. Thus, you will get fairly frequent interactions where chemical bonds are broken or rearranged. Your material will degrade over time, probably quite quickly with the brighness you'd need (see first point).


Like I said, optical computation is a neat idea, and is very useful for many things, but is unlikely to completely replace electrical computation.

Re:Bear in mind the wavelength limit. (2)

Christopher Thomas (11717) | more than 14 years ago | (#1346170)

Both of these are the exact reason (if my understanding of the technology is correct from the white papers I have read) why optical chips should be faster:

1.The lowered heat dissipation would allow smaller gate sizes without crosstalk/circuit failure becoming serious problem, and

2.the ability to go three dimensional shortens the actual circuit pathways.


You seem to be overlooking the points that I raised in my previous post, and are replying only to the caveats.

Regarding 1) - electrical circuits are already denser than optical circuits ever will be. Feature size cannot be much smaller than the wavelength of light used. This eliminates the possibility of "smaller gate size".

Regarding 2) - Check out your own quote of my post. You _can_ build three-dimensional electronic circuits. Several groups have been playing with this for a while. There are engineering difficulties when you try to do it in production quantities, but nothing that can't be overcome.


3.An optical circuit based bus in the computer would remove the bandwidth of the bus as a major bottleneck/expense.

This, I agree with completely. However, I feel that optoelectronic systems would be more practical than purely optical, for the reasons mentioned above.

A few comments (2)

Kaufmann (16976) | more than 14 years ago | (#1346171)

Anyone notice that nowhere in the press release did they bother to mention exactly what constitutes "photonics"?

(Flame retardant: yes, I've conducted a search and found it out. I'm merely pointing out that the PR rants for pages and pages about an undefined word. Maybe it's just my innate dislike for the phony buzzword-heavy writing style. Ah well.)

Anyway, this is really interesting. Obviously there are plenty of "but"'s, as other posters have no doubt pointed out by now, but this is a real step forward in research. And it seems rather close to my primary field of interest (self-replicating artificial molecules) - maybe it will give me a chance to actually do some official work on it. Really makes MIT look better and better to me. Hmmmm, I can see it already... "Rafael Kaufmann, Ph. D."... oh yeah. :)

By the way, I'm still waiting for my nanites!

(P.S.: <spelling-nazi>The correct form is "revolutionise".</spelling-nazi>)

Nanovation Tech + MIT Brains (2)

CodeShark (17400) | more than 14 years ago | (#1346172)

IIRC, there was a /. article on Nanovation about 8 months ago -- this is the company that was working on creating logic gates (circuits) that function on the quantum level, the so called "light-zister" which would essentially change computers as we know them from electricity based systems to light-wave based systems.

The ramification of those circuits is that we could essentially have CPU's 10-50x faster than current chips, with much lower energy consumption as well.

Anyway, this announcement strikes me as good karma for both Nanovation and MIT. One of the aspects which struck me as being highly positive is that MIT researchers will be free to publish their findings, although Nanovation will have the right to patent the devices.

The question I haven't answered for myself from the press release is whether or not the publishing of those results would allow others to develop technology without breaking the patents... Comments anyone?

Ultra funky tech (2)

TheDullBlade (28998) | more than 14 years ago | (#1346173)

This is a truly fascinating area of research. The sheer wierdness of it makes any papers you can find worth reading. It takes a while to let the idea of thinking of light in individual chunks sink in.

Imagine having stateless logic gates that you can send a thousand signals through simultaneously, or having a device as tiny as a pair of glasses that beams a perfect 3D image at higher resolution than your eyes can distinguish directly onto your retinas.

This stuff is da bomb.

Re:Nanovation Tech + MIT Brains (2)

Weezul (52464) | more than 14 years ago | (#1346174)

Such a beast would reduce the complexity of a brute force search for a symmetric key by a "mere" square root.

This is incorrect. Shor's quatum factoring algorithm achives a polynomial time bound for factoring large numbers. I believe the square root improvment is grovers algorithm for general inverse problems. It is still possible that there is a large factor sitting in the engenering problem of constructing a quantum computer which would mess up Shor's algorithm, but there are currently no credible (information theoretic) arguments for such a problem.

I have a question regarding the really dumb post you replied to. Did the article even discuss quantum mechanics? I did not look vcery closely, but I did not see it discussed. Meaning the donut message you repled to had about 0 clueons. I noticed the same person later on in the discussion making some wild claims about this article saing quantum entangelemnts would create FTL communications. I'm thinking maybe we may have a new type of troll? :)

I suppose someone could submit a story called "What /. dose not understand about physics" and correct a few of the common missconceptions.

Jeff

Re:THAT WAS NOT A HAIKU (2)

cheese63 (74259) | more than 14 years ago | (#1346175)

Where's the Natalie Portman?

natalie portman
is naked and petrified,
happy is the troll

Note that I'm not the natalie portman troll guy, and I apologize to him if he's offended by this haiku.

Re:hundreds of times faster... (2)

friedo (112163) | more than 14 years ago | (#1346176)

I attended a lecture several years ago on photonic research. It was mostly conceptual, but here's how it works, from what I remember. Quantum physicists have found that certain quantum particles, such as photons, can be "linked" to other photons, regardless of physical distance (relative to three dimensions, anyway.) A change in state in one photon results in the same change of state in the other photon, instantaneously, even if they are light-years apart. I believe this ability has to do with higher spatial dimensions, i.e., although they are far apart in three-dimensional perception, if a three dimensional universe is curved in the direction of another dimension, the two photons may be right next to each other. Anyhoo, if you want to set up a communications link, get a photon and monitor its state. The person on the other end can change the state of his photon, thus sending you a message. Pretty nifty stuff....I hope I got it right. Please tell me if I got a part of it wrong, as IANAQP and it's been a while since that lecture.

Quantum Entanglement (2)

spiro_killglance (121572) | more than 14 years ago | (#1346177)

The correct term is that the particles are entangled. The funny this can't be used send information faster than light or in fact send information at all, but when it is combined with classical (i.e. ordinary) communications it can exponientially boost the ammount of information carried by the channel. I.E. 8 entangled particles + 8 bits of ordinary information = 8 qubits = 256 classical bits. This is killer app for QM, boosting bandwiths.
A quantum channel can also be designed to untappable, (search for quantum crytography to find out more).
Meanwhile quantum computers can bring the same exponiential boost to some mathmatical problems, one of which is factorizing prime numbers (goodbye RSA and https).
Researches are current bizzy developinf the basics for quantum computation and quantum telecommunications. Theory is still decades ahead of practice. E.g. Physists have already designed quantum telephone exchanges in theory, (using entanglement swapping) to distribute entangled pairs of particles, but it will be years before you can buy a quantum router.

Re:Questions (2)

zyqqh (137965) | more than 14 years ago | (#1346178)

What kind of opportunities will this bring to an undergrad at MIT? How sensational would an undergrad have to be to have an important place in the project?

From my experience, this is likely to give a lot of undergrads a spot on the research team, but in terms of "important places" -- highly unlikely. It is very rare that an undergrad obtains a top role in a major research project, let alone a widely-publicized one such as this.

The article says that discoveries made solely by MIT affiliates (or whatever) are owned by MIT. What does this mean in practice? What exactly does MIT do with a patent it posesses?

In practice, you will find that all universities retain IP rights to IP created by their professors -- otherwise why would they be paying them? (No, teaching is far too minor to be the primary source of income). A patent held by a university usually only means that those in the industry who want to actually implement the idea have to pay royalties (otherwise the world's scientific community would just be a public-use R & D team). A university would not, generally, put restrictions on a patent that would prevent the work from being at the basis of future studies.

Geosynch is pretty far up. (3)

Christopher Thomas (11717) | more than 14 years ago | (#1346179)

I don't believe orbital satellite latency is due to the speed of light. Light travels at ~186,282 miles per second. That means you get 1ms of latency for every 186.282 miles. Orbital satellites are not high enough to have substantial latency due to distance.

While it's true that satellites tend to have slower processors, latency due to the speed of light is very real. Think about your own calculation - for a satellite in Low Earth Orbit, about 300 km up (about 186 miles), you have a 2 ms latency round-trip. And that assumes that the satellite is directly overhead.

In practice, the situation tends to be much worse than this. Viewing at an angle can easily add a factor of two or three here, but that's for LEO; many satellites are instead in geosynchronous orbit, at about 40,000 km. At this altitude, they have an orbital period of 24 hours, which means that you don't have to keep adjusting your satellite dish to track them. However, it also means that you'll be getting about 130 ms delay _each_way_ to the satellite. Round-trip from one point on earth to another, and you start to see why you get latency.

Even fiber over the surface of the earth will give you latency. Per thousand km, you get about 3.3 ms latency each way (ping of 6.7 ms). The farthest point from you is about 20,000 km away. That's almost (but not quite) as bad as geosynchronus orbit.

Re:Nanovation Tech + MIT Brains (3)

friedo (112163) | more than 14 years ago | (#1346180)

Quantum computers will make processor a helluva lot more than 10-50 times as fast as electrical ones. You'll be able to do near-infinate calculations simultaneously. There will be no more Moore's law, no more bottlenecks, and certainly no more cryptography as we know it. Theoretically, a quantum particle can exist in an infinite number of states simultaneously as long as the effects of those states aren't being directly observed. Therefor, your quantum logic gates can do as many instructions as you want at the same time.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...