Slashdot Mirror
More on Spintronics
segment writes "'We have discovered the equivalent of a new 'Ohm's Law' for spintronics - the emerging science of manipulating the spin of electrons for useful purposes,' says Shoucheng Zhang, a physics professor at Stanford. 'Unlike the Ohm's Law for electronics, the new 'Ohm's Law' that we've discovered says that the spin of the electron can be transported without any loss of energy, or dissipation. Furthermore, this effect occurs at room temperature in materials already widely used in the semiconductor industry, such as gallium arsenide.'"
Ohm's law is "voltage dropped across a load is directly proportional to the current through the load, for a constant load". What does this have to do with the law the article talks about?
Jason
ProfQuotes
You think that a news release covering a article in Science isn't going to be dumbed down? Or that Dr.Shou-Cheng has managed to fool Stanford, Santa Barbara, and IBM with his slick descriptions of 'imagine a planet orbiting around the sun'. Or possibly you have a better explanation of quantum spin that will eludicate the masses in 30 words or less?
"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
Sorry, no.
Entropy is not an absolute law, but a law based on extreme probabilities. In any reaction, certain quantities are completely conserved. One of these is energy.
The increase in entropy that occurs is due to energy being converted into less usable forms, such as from motion (kinetic energy) to heat (thermal energy).
It is not actually a decrease in total energy. Energy is perfectly conserved in any reaction.
In subatomic reactions, there is no place for energy to go, so to speak. In fact, the only thing energy really is is the motion (and mass, though those are remarkably interlinked) of subatomic particles.
When two subatomic particles collide, if neither of them splits or gives of any other particles, the energy remains entirely in the two particle system (that is, all that changes is kinetic energy; speed). Well, direction changes as well.
Mod parent down; he is incorrect. (or not, I'm actually in favor of the mod up only philosophy, but parent would be a good one to mod down if you believe in modding factually incorrect posts down).
For to end yet again.
The discussion on spin is wrong. Spin has nothing to do with the rotation of macroscopic objects like the Earth, it's an intrinsic quantum property of particles like the electronic with no macroscopic analog. The best explanation I've heard of spin that doesn't involve explaining the details goes like this: spin is a measurement of the number of rotations required to bring a particle back to its initial state. One-half spin particles, like the electron, require, counterintuitively, two full rotations to go back to their initial state.
The physical situation seems to have very little to do with Ohm's Law except in the loosest sense. They're describing a current consisting of electron spins under an external electric field. This has some interesting properties (I'd like to poke at the math, if I could read the paper), one of which seems to be that it is predicted to persist at much higher temperatures than the best superconductors. If so, because this spin current seems to be dissipationless, this would allow information to be transmitted without generating heat.
Interesting stuff; a pity the article was so poor.