• Buffalox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    AFAIK the smallest usable atom is about 150 picometer carbon, and the smallest amount of atoms theoretically possible to make a transistor is 3, so there is (probably) no way to go below 450 picometer. There is probably also no way to actually achieve 450 picometer which is the same as 0.45 nanometer.
    So the idea that they are currently going below 2nm is of course untrue, but IDK what the real measure is?

    What they are doing at the leading chip manufacturing factories is amazing, so amazing it’s kind of insane. But it’s not actually 2nm.

    Just for info, one silicon/silicium atom is 0.2 nm.

    • Hadriscus@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 days ago

      That’s super cool. I’m asking as a total layman, what’s preventing the use of subatomic particles as transistors ?

      • theparadox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 days ago

        Not an expert but… typical computers do what they do by transmitting (primarily) electrical signals between components. Is there electricity or isn’t there. It’s the “bit” with two states - on or off, 1 or 0. Electricity is the flow of electrons between atoms. Basically, we take atoms that aren’t very attached to some of their electrons and manipulate them so that they pass the electrons along when we want them to. I don’t know if there is a way to conduct and process electrical signals without using an atom’s relationship with its electrons.

        Quantum computing is the suspected new way to get to “better” computing. I don’t know much about the technical side of that, beyond that they use quantum physics to expand the bit to something like a qubit, which exploits superposition (quantum particles existing in multiple states simultaneously until measured, like the Schrodinger’s cat metaphor) and entanglement (if two quantum particles’ states are related to or dependent on each other, determining the state of one particle also determines the state of the other) to transmit/process more than just a simple 1 or 0 per qubit. A lot more information can be transmitted and processed simultaneously with a more complex bit. As I understand it, quantum computing has been very slow going.

        That’s my shitty explanation. I’m sure someone will come along and correct my inaccurate simplification of how it all works and list all that I missed, like fiberoptic transmission of signals.

        • nightlily@leminal.space
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 days ago

          Quantum computing can’t achieve better outcomes for general computing problems than classical computing can. It’s just possible to do particular kinds of algorithms with it (like Shor‘s Algorithm for factorising prime numbers) that classical computing can’t do. It’s still a lot of smoke and mirrors at the moment though.

          • ranzispa@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            Quantum computing would be revolutionary in certain fields. It could completely change certain calculations we do. I do run stuff that takes weeks while using several GPUs, that could plausibly be done much much faster with quantum computers. Accurate and complete quantum algorithms for such calculations are not yet available, but I know there is people working on it and making progress.

            What we’re missing is the computers. Kinda difficult to do all this quantum computing when you have no quantum computer. Or when your quantum computer has like 8 qbits and after 100 operations all you get is noise.