5 ms·

I find it just amazing that modern chips already have parts that are just thirty or so atoms across [1], and that there are plans to go even smaller. I guess yo

I find it just amazing that modern chips already have parts that are just thirty or so atoms across [1], and that there are plans to go even smaller. I guess you can't go much smaller than 1.5nm because that's, like, three atoms, right? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14_nanometer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14_nanometer

tfgg 12y ago
1.5nm is more like 10 atoms across, given that, for example, a C-C bond is 0.154 nm. Not that that helps tremendously :)
- Denvercoder9 12y ago
  I don't think we can actually make chips out of carbon...
  - tfgg 12y ago
    It was an number for the length of a chemical bond that I had easily to hand, other bonds aren't significantly different, definitely not 5 Angstrom. Also, people working on graphene and related materials are trying damn hard to make chips out of carbon ;)
    - josaka 12y ago
      Unit cell is 5.43 Angstroms, according to this site: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/solids/sili2.html http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/solids/sili2.html. Of course the bonds by which the cell is constructed are smaller.
- josaka 12y ago
  Unit cell of Silicon is about 5 angstroms (0.5 nm), so we'd be at about 7 atoms wide for a diamond cubic structure (I think).
- claudius 12y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monocrystalline_silicon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monocrystalline_silicon has 0.5nm for the lattice spacing, distance between Si atoms ranges somewhere between 0.3nm and 0.5nm, I guess. Even if you go to graphene instead of Si wafers, I don’t think you’ll get more than three atoms within 1.5nm, as graphene is not a cubical lattice.
ufmace 12y ago
That what I always wonder. There's gotta be a limit in there somewhere... right? Maybe? But they just keep finding new ways to make 'em even smaller yet. How far will we go, and what will our devices and industry look like by the time we can't go any further?
- josu 12y ago
  I don't think that there is a way to go smaller than an atom. Most likely, there will be a sifht in technique. My guess is quantum computing, but who knows.
  - MichaelApproved 12y ago
    Your third sentence contradicts your first. Quantum deals in the realm of atomic and subatomic length scales.
    - josu 12y ago
      I don't think that quantum computers are made of subatomic components, nor are atoms split in the process.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- tedsanders 12y ago
  It's quite possible we're at the cusp of the plateau already. For many years planes kept getting faster and faster, until one day they didn't. It may be the same with processors. For years they'll keep getting smaller and smaller, until one day they don't. In fact, this already happened with clock speed 10 years ago. The top Pentium 4s, while certainly worse than the Haswell i7s of today, have about the same clock speed (3.8 GHz or so).
  - trsohmers 12y ago
    That's due to thermal and electrical limits of Silicon and whatever you are using to insulate (Silicon Dioxide)... having a semiconductor with a higher bandgap (Such as many III-V semiconductors, such as indium gallium arsenide), you can have a much higher clockspeed.

tfgg 12y ago

1.5nm is more like 10 atoms across, given that, for example, a C-C bond is 0.154 nm. Not that that helps tremendously :)

Denvercoder9 12y ago
I don't think we can actually make chips out of carbon...
- tfgg 12y ago
  It was an number for the length of a chemical bond that I had easily to hand, other bonds aren't significantly different, definitely not 5 Angstrom. Also, people working on graphene and related materials are trying damn hard to make chips out of carbon ;)
  - josaka 12y ago
    Unit cell is 5.43 Angstroms, according to this site: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/solids/sili2.html http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/solids/sili2.html. Of course the bonds by which the cell is constructed are smaller.
josaka 12y ago
Unit cell of Silicon is about 5 angstroms (0.5 nm), so we'd be at about 7 atoms wide for a diamond cubic structure (I think).
claudius 12y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monocrystalline_silicon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monocrystalline_silicon has 0.5nm for the lattice spacing, distance between Si atoms ranges somewhere between 0.3nm and 0.5nm, I guess. Even if you go to graphene instead of Si wafers, I don’t think you’ll get more than three atoms within 1.5nm, as graphene is not a cubical lattice.

ufmace 12y ago

That what I always wonder. There's gotta be a limit in there somewhere... right? Maybe? But they just keep finding new ways to make 'em even smaller yet. How far will we go, and what will our devices and industry look like by the time we can't go any further?

josu 12y ago
I don't think that there is a way to go smaller than an atom. Most likely, there will be a sifht in technique. My guess is quantum computing, but who knows.
- MichaelApproved 12y ago
  Your third sentence contradicts your first. Quantum deals in the realm of atomic and subatomic length scales.
  - josu 12y ago
    I don't think that quantum computers are made of subatomic components, nor are atoms split in the process.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
tedsanders 12y ago
It's quite possible we're at the cusp of the plateau already. For many years planes kept getting faster and faster, until one day they didn't. It may be the same with processors. For years they'll keep getting smaller and smaller, until one day they don't. In fact, this already happened with clock speed 10 years ago. The top Pentium 4s, while certainly worse than the Haswell i7s of today, have about the same clock speed (3.8 GHz or so).
- trsohmers 12y ago
  That's due to thermal and electrical limits of Silicon and whatever you are using to insulate (Silicon Dioxide)... having a semiconductor with a higher bandgap (Such as many III-V semiconductors, such as indium gallium arsenide), you can have a much higher clockspeed.