10 ms·

Researchers demonstrate the first single-photon transistor using a semiconductor

48 points by ItsTotallyOn 8y ago

dschuetz 8y ago
> quantum light That is one of those articles which are meant to impress people with money and make people cringe who understand a thing or two about the subject it is covering.
- AmericanChopper 8y ago
  What’s wrong with “quantum light”? The photon is the quanta of light (or electromagnetic radiation more generally). Quantization is what Planck’s hypothesis is all about.
  - kurthr 8y ago
    Yes, but you could also just refer to it as light. In it's most common (visible) form it readily demonstrates both quantized and wave-polarization effects. DeBrogli also showed it with matter, but it's significantly more difficult to observe.
  - xelxebar 8y ago
    It's like saying "wet water". Not a false statement, but under normal conversational assumptions, it sure sounds like there's some non-wet water or some similar contrasting idea. If you're familiar with Grice's Maxims, then "quantum light" violates the Principle of Quantity by providing too much information, inviting misinterpretation.
    - AmericanChopper 8y ago
      Water has been obviously wet for as long as there’s been water. The theory of quantized light has only existed since 1900. The idea of using light quanta to power logic gates is a very modern innovation, in a very modern field called quantum computing, which is what the article being discussed is about. There’s no such thing as dry water, but there’s a very clear distinction between a technology that processes individual photons and one that just uses light. Perhaps ‘quantum light’ is a bit contrived, but the ‘quantum-ness’ of the light is the novel aspect of both the technology and the underlying physics.
      - adrianN 8y ago
        What you're saying is of course correct, but I wanted to mention that there is this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_water https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_water
    - talltimtom 8y ago
      It’s more akin to saying water droplets. Now you can argue that “all water is made up of droplets” but still not every body of water is a bunch of droplets. When people talk about quantum light, they mean something different from just saying light. You are being pandantic.
      - oytis 8y ago
        It would be better called 'quantized light' IMO. 'quantum light' sounds like marketing BS.
        dschuetz 8y ago
        That's essentially what I meant. Thanks. Quantized light still is like "wet water", but at least it sounds less like some obscure/magical light from the magical world of quanta.
        AmericanChopper 8y ago
        Well the photon is the quantum of light. I don’t think you’d say ‘quantized computer’, you’d probably say quantum computer, as in relating to quanta.
        oytis 8y ago
        Don't get your analogy. Photon is a quantum of light. Quantum computer is not a quantum of computing.
  - dschuetz 8y ago
    What's wrong with simply stating that there are special transistors now that are capable of being switched with a single photon. But no, there are quantum transistors now which can be triggered by quantum light. It's appalling to get such a read from ieee. Unbelievable even. But, hey, it's ieee spectrum, so who cares anyway besides people with money ready to burn.
    - AmericanChopper 8y ago
      Quantum is the appropriate word for describing quanta. The only thing even slightly dubious about the headline is it’s use of the word ‘light’, but it’s very far from being appalling or unbelievable.
  - abdullahkhalids 8y ago
    Physicist chiming in. I just want to point out that "quantum light" has a specific meaning in the optics community, and much more restrictive than what you are pointing at. All light is quantum in the sense that it is made of discrete photons, but the "quantumness of a light beam" is a quantification of whether you need quantum theory or classical theory to describe the behavior of that beam of that light. Beams for which you need quantum theory, such as single photons, are called "quantum light". Other beams, like the one coming from the sun, are called "classical light". As such I am fine with the usage of "quantum light" in the title. The usage in the text is a bit odd, but technically correct.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- _Microft 8y ago
  To start off with, it doesn't simply say quantum light in the last paragraph of the article (only reference to that term in all of the article) but quantum light transistor. So maybe it's just a typo in the headline. And regarding the last paragraph: Does reading it as (quantum (light transistor)) instead of ((quantum light) transistor) make more sense? I'm not sure if something like a classical optical transistor is possible but if yes then that might justify explicitely mentioning quantum here.
- iovrthoughtthis 8y ago
  I feel like this is a classic example of a bikeshed. It’s tough to have a genuine opinion about the concept of a light based transistor but it is far easier to have an opinion about the words used to deacribe it. Im not saying your comment isn’t valid, im saying it detracts from other conversation. See all of the comments below.
  - dschuetz 8y ago
    It's a transistor switching on single photons. It's not even light. Why not use proper terms instead of marketing mumbo-jumbo? What audience is it adressed to? I like the idea that a single photon is enough to make a transistor switch currents, but I don't like the idea that people read "quantum light and quantum transistors" instead. You are clearly missing the point. It's hard to form a genuine opinion on ingenuine dumb shit like that in that article.
    - iovrthoughtthis 8y ago
      Your reaction seems a little extreme tbh. In effect someone named a complex concept wrong. Is it not better that they wrote about it at all, then that they used the correct names for everything. There’s some space for empathy here imo.
montenegrohugo 8y ago
Can anyone tell me how much of a reduction in space and energy this would suppose compared to current 7nm architecture? 100x? 1000x?
etaioinshrdlu 8y ago
I'm pretty uneducated on the subject, but I wonder if we could have quantum computers that exist on a spectrum with standard digital computers, such as by having transistors, logic gates, memory cells all in superpositions. Maybe there could be a fuzzy dividing line between quantum and classical computers.
- abdullahkhalids 8y ago
  That's a good and a bad question. Let me rephrase your question. A classical (standard digital) computer can solve some problems efficiently/easily, and others not so. A quantum computer can efficiently solve all problems that classical computers find easy, and some of the problems that classical computers find hard. Now, your questions seems to be, if I make a midway computer that has some superposition in it, would it be stronger than a classical computer? The answer is yes and no. There are indeed some problems that this midway computer can solve faster than classical computers. But these problems are mostly mathematical curiosities, interesting that they exist, but not useful at all for any practical problem. If you look at only the practically useful problems, then either you keep things simple and make a classical computer and deal with not being able to solve some problems. Or you make things complicated and make a quantum computer and solve some more problems efficiently. In other words, edge cases aside, the jump from classical computers to quantum computers is a qualitative change, and not a continuous spectrum as you wonder.

48 points by ItsTotallyOn 8y ago

> quantum light That is one of those articles which are meant to impress people with money and make people cringe who understand a thing or two about the subject it is covering.

AmericanChopper 8y ago
What’s wrong with “quantum light”? The photon is the quanta of light (or electromagnetic radiation more generally). Quantization is what Planck’s hypothesis is all about.
- kurthr 8y ago
  Yes, but you could also just refer to it as light. In it's most common (visible) form it readily demonstrates both quantized and wave-polarization effects. DeBrogli also showed it with matter, but it's significantly more difficult to observe.
- xelxebar 8y ago
  It's like saying "wet water". Not a false statement, but under normal conversational assumptions, it sure sounds like there's some non-wet water or some similar contrasting idea. If you're familiar with Grice's Maxims, then "quantum light" violates the Principle of Quantity by providing too much information, inviting misinterpretation.
  - AmericanChopper 8y ago
    Water has been obviously wet for as long as there’s been water. The theory of quantized light has only existed since 1900. The idea of using light quanta to power logic gates is a very modern innovation, in a very modern field called quantum computing, which is what the article being discussed is about. There’s no such thing as dry water, but there’s a very clear distinction between a technology that processes individual photons and one that just uses light. Perhaps ‘quantum light’ is a bit contrived, but the ‘quantum-ness’ of the light is the novel aspect of both the technology and the underlying physics.
    - adrianN 8y ago
      What you're saying is of course correct, but I wanted to mention that there is this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_water https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_water
  - talltimtom 8y ago
    It’s more akin to saying water droplets. Now you can argue that “all water is made up of droplets” but still not every body of water is a bunch of droplets. When people talk about quantum light, they mean something different from just saying light. You are being pandantic.
    - oytis 8y ago
      It would be better called 'quantized light' IMO. 'quantum light' sounds like marketing BS.
      - dschuetz 8y ago
        That's essentially what I meant. Thanks. Quantized light still is like "wet water", but at least it sounds less like some obscure/magical light from the magical world of quanta.
      - AmericanChopper 8y ago
        Well the photon is the quantum of light. I don’t think you’d say ‘quantized computer’, you’d probably say quantum computer, as in relating to quanta.
        oytis 8y ago
        Don't get your analogy. Photon is a quantum of light. Quantum computer is not a quantum of computing.
- dschuetz 8y ago
  What's wrong with simply stating that there are special transistors now that are capable of being switched with a single photon. But no, there are quantum transistors now which can be triggered by quantum light. It's appalling to get such a read from ieee. Unbelievable even. But, hey, it's ieee spectrum, so who cares anyway besides people with money ready to burn.
  - AmericanChopper 8y ago
    Quantum is the appropriate word for describing quanta. The only thing even slightly dubious about the headline is it’s use of the word ‘light’, but it’s very far from being appalling or unbelievable.
- abdullahkhalids 8y ago
  Physicist chiming in. I just want to point out that "quantum light" has a specific meaning in the optics community, and much more restrictive than what you are pointing at. All light is quantum in the sense that it is made of discrete photons, but the "quantumness of a light beam" is a quantification of whether you need quantum theory or classical theory to describe the behavior of that beam of that light. Beams for which you need quantum theory, such as single photons, are called "quantum light". Other beams, like the one coming from the sun, are called "classical light". As such I am fine with the usage of "quantum light" in the title. The usage in the text is a bit odd, but technically correct.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
_Microft 8y ago
To start off with, it doesn't simply say quantum light in the last paragraph of the article (only reference to that term in all of the article) but quantum light transistor. So maybe it's just a typo in the headline. And regarding the last paragraph: Does reading it as (quantum (light transistor)) instead of ((quantum light) transistor) make more sense? I'm not sure if something like a classical optical transistor is possible but if yes then that might justify explicitely mentioning quantum here.
iovrthoughtthis 8y ago
I feel like this is a classic example of a bikeshed. It’s tough to have a genuine opinion about the concept of a light based transistor but it is far easier to have an opinion about the words used to deacribe it. Im not saying your comment isn’t valid, im saying it detracts from other conversation. See all of the comments below.
- dschuetz 8y ago
  It's a transistor switching on single photons. It's not even light. Why not use proper terms instead of marketing mumbo-jumbo? What audience is it adressed to? I like the idea that a single photon is enough to make a transistor switch currents, but I don't like the idea that people read "quantum light and quantum transistors" instead. You are clearly missing the point. It's hard to form a genuine opinion on ingenuine dumb shit like that in that article.
  - iovrthoughtthis 8y ago
    Your reaction seems a little extreme tbh. In effect someone named a complex concept wrong. Is it not better that they wrote about it at all, then that they used the correct names for everything. There’s some space for empathy here imo.

montenegrohugo 8y ago

Can anyone tell me how much of a reduction in space and energy this would suppose compared to current 7nm architecture? 100x? 1000x?

etaioinshrdlu 8y ago

I'm pretty uneducated on the subject, but I wonder if we could have quantum computers that exist on a spectrum with standard digital computers, such as by having transistors, logic gates, memory cells all in superpositions. Maybe there could be a fuzzy dividing line between quantum and classical computers.

abdullahkhalids 8y ago
That's a good and a bad question. Let me rephrase your question. A classical (standard digital) computer can solve some problems efficiently/easily, and others not so. A quantum computer can efficiently solve all problems that classical computers find easy, and some of the problems that classical computers find hard. Now, your questions seems to be, if I make a midway computer that has some superposition in it, would it be stronger than a classical computer? The answer is yes and no. There are indeed some problems that this midway computer can solve faster than classical computers. But these problems are mostly mathematical curiosities, interesting that they exist, but not useful at all for any practical problem. If you look at only the practically useful problems, then either you keep things simple and make a classical computer and deal with not being able to solve some problems. Or you make things complicated and make a quantum computer and solve some more problems efficiently. In other words, edge cases aside, the jump from classical computers to quantum computers is a qualitative change, and not a continuous spectrum as you wonder.