4 ms·
1nm isn't a special number just because it is 1. A nm is one billionth of a metre which itself is an arbitrary length so 1nm is a purely arbitrary cut-off. Wha
by igravious 9y ago
1nm isn't a special number just because it is 1. A nm is one billionth of a metre which itself is an arbitrary length so 1nm is a purely arbitrary cut-off.
What you should be asking is how many molecules of silicon and silicon-germanium can be packed into the spaces being talked about at the different fabrication levels of 14nm, 10nm, 7nm, 5nm, and so on.
Once you have that information then you can ask what is the smallest number of molecules that these processes can scale down to. Only then we can start asking about physical limits and more exotic processes. Are we talking about features of 50 or 40 molecules across or what?
All I know is that 1nm is not a magic number and that predictions about the demise of transistor scaling have always turned out to be wrong. My prediction is that, as unimaginable as it seems, we'll be able to scale down to the physical limits of the materials.
- ant6n 9y ago> we'll be able to scale down to the physical limits of the materials. So that's like 1nm?
- halomru 9y agoSomewhere between 0.1nm and 1nm.
- b34r 9y agoAccording to my very unscientific googling, a silicon atom is approximately 111 picometers, or just over 1/10 of a nanometer. So if we can make stable gates with only 3-4 Si atoms, we can definitely go below 1nm.
- snovv_crash 9y agoDon't forget you need a doping atom as well.
- davidiach 9y ago>All I know is that 1nm is not a magic number and that predictions about the demise of transistor scaling have always turned out to be wrong. My prediction is that, as unimaginable as it seems, we'll be able to scale down to the physical limits of the materials. This is very important to be pointed out. The burden of proof should be on the people who suggest that "this time it is different", not on those who correctly assumed that technology tends to progress in time.
- tdb7893 9y agoIsn't a silicon atom only like .2 nm wide? My guess is that a gate needs to be at least a few atoms wide so 1nm would seem to be decently close to the literal limit for silicon.
- vasili111 9y ago>My prediction is that, as unimaginable as it seems, we'll be able to scale down to the physical limits of the materials. What are these physical limits of the materials?
- sqeaky 9y agoWhatever they are, there will be some other materials that will let get lower.... Until we are building on a single atom, and even then maybe we can go smaller.
- vasili111 9y ago>even then maybe we can go smaller. Can you elaborate?
- sqeaky 9y agoWe simply don't know what the smallest thing we can compute with is. A material scientist might say that the smallest silicon traces that can do the are X nanometers, then another will come along and say he is right, but we can use gallium-arsenide to get down to X-5 nanometers. And this progressive 1 upping has fueled Moore's law There are people doing research on subatomic who think that various quarks have interesting properties for computing. This may or may not be possible. But we likely don't know yet.