Slashdot Mirror


Storing Light In Chips

Roland Piquepaille writes "Recently, researchers have "stopped light" by storing light pulses in hot or extremely cold gases (check these former stories on Slashdot or at BBC News Online). Now, scientists from Stanford University have devised a method to store light pulses under ordinary conditions. In Light-storing chip charted, Technology Research News says this opens the way for all-optical communications switches, quantum computers and quantum communications devices. The researchers plan to demonstrate this technique by trapping microwave signals within a year. They think that a prototype which works at optical frequencies could be made in two to five years. This overview contains more details and references."

164 comments

  1. Schrodinger by andy666 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This was predicted by Schrodinger in the 30's - it really took them a long time to do it.

    1. Re:Schrodinger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, you can get it out of Scrodinger's equation, but I am sure that you don't need Quantum Mechanics for this.

    2. Re:Schrodinger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      And to this date, nobody actually *tried* tying buttered toast to a cat's back, for the hovering-cat effect!

    3. Re:Schrodinger by Winkhorst · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hey, it took centuries to get around to using Copernicus's orbital equations with spacecraft. This is the beauty of basic research. It eventually has a practical use, but you can't base its validity on how long it takes to use it. And you have to distinguish between research and the ability to invent something. As John W. Campbell once pointed out, the Classical Greeks had everything necessarily to invent the phonograph, though it wasn't until Edison that somebody got around to doing it. In that particular case, it was the mental rut into which the Greeks had worn themselves that kept them from making much practical progress, thus leading to the return to power of irrational religion and the eventual rise of the Dark Ages.

      --
      "Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
    4. Re:Schrodinger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you need a cum pie

    5. Re:Schrodinger by andy666 · · Score: 5, Informative

      It isn't Copernicus' equations that are used for spacecraft, but Newton's F=ma, Newton's law of gravitation, and an occasional use of General Relativistic corrections.

    6. Re:Schrodinger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Light will be the tranport medium of our future. Maybe someday will get somewhere in this universe of ours.

    7. Re:Schrodinger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
      wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
      wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww



      # Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic.
      # Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads.
      # Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
      # Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
      # Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)
      # If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.

      Problems regarding accounts or comment posting should be sent to CowboyNeal.
      # Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic.
      # Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads.
      # Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
      # Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
      # Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)
      # If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.

      Problems regarding accounts or comment posting should be sent to CowboyNeal.
    8. Re:Schrodinger by gertsenl · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually, I did once. It didn't work. :(

      --
      --Leo
    9. Re:Schrodinger by Weird+O'Puns · · Score: 1

      So, which of them worked? Cat or sandwich?

    10. Re:Schrodinger by andy666 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Maybe the toast would just force it's buttered side to the floor, squishing the cat.

    11. Re:Schrodinger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. Go take a basic Physics course.

      For space travel no one uses f=ma because that is jut a special case of Newtons second law. As the space shuttle rises it uses the fuel and the mass changes and that equasion is only for the special case where mass is constant.

      You have to use f = dp/dt.

    12. Re:Schrodinger by andy666 · · Score: 1

      Newsflash: dp/dt = ma

    13. Re:Schrodinger by DonGar · · Score: 1

      Neither. They both exploded.

      --
      plus-good, double-plus-good
    14. Re:Schrodinger by Winkhorst · · Score: 1

      Sorry. But the point was that there wouldn't have been a Newton or space travel without the basic concept that the sun didn't orbit around the Earth. What was the topic again? ;-)

      --
      "Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
    15. Re:Schrodinger by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

      @ rotflmao @ The Toast/Cat hover tank is just around the corner!

      --
      Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
    16. Re:Schrodinger by bindo · · Score: 1

      yes Mental RUT !!!!
      that is what happened to the greeks.

      The fact the Romans dominated the world for nearly another millenium is irrelevant.

      As well as the fact that pagan culture was lost to christianity centuries before the dark ages came.

      And the fact that in the whole eastern side of the empire things wen't merely on for other hundreds of years...

      By the way, if you go read a history book take your time to check IF technology stood still from 1200bc to 200bc in Greece.

      get a clue!

    17. Re:Schrodinger by sbeashwar · · Score: 1

      "Storing light..!" what immediately come to my mind is an eternal bulb ! that doesn't fuse or require power :-)

    18. Re:Schrodinger by tiburon666 · · Score: 1

      Dude, I am obtaining my PhD in obtics and mirror design and have spent many years studying light at a certain giant engineering university. I am sorry to burst your bubble, but your statement is an absolute lie. This prediction was instead made by Plank in the early 1900's. Schrodinger, who hated Plank, attempted to steal all of his ideas and stifle his development... much like Newton stealing calculus from Leibniz.

      Please from now on, do some research before you post

    19. Re:Schrodinger by andy666 · · Score: 1

      "Obtics" ? What kind of subject is that ? Is it a scientific ? Sounds interesting.

  2. Not hard by Squareball · · Score: 5, Funny

    Storing microwaves within a year isn't very hard. I mean a year is huge!

    1. Re:Not hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yeah, but if you store them in a chip, it's much easier to find them -- provided that you don't lose the chip, of course.

    2. Re:Not hard by maztuhblastah · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, but if you store them in a chip, it's much easier to find them -- provided that you don't lose the chip, of course.

      Yeah, but who microwaves chips...I use salsa.

    3. Re:Not hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I store my microwave on the counter next to the oven

    4. Re:Not hard by Squiffy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Last year I chipped a store with a microwave.

  3. Practicality in Displays by Aurix · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Anyone know if this would help out in display technologies?

    Ie, instead of refreshing a CRT, if the light was held until it was no longer needed?

    Might pave the way to some new display technologies =)

    1. Re:Practicality in Displays by cubic6 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, if the light is held, it's not getting to your eyes, and thus not making a visible picture. So in that particular instance, I would think that this wouldn't help very much.

      --
      Karma: Contrapositive
    2. Re:Practicality in Displays by jointm1k · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Then you would stare at a black screen. If all light is held and not transmitted, no waves are projected on your retina - or at least no ligthwaves from the screen.

      --
      You know it makes sense, a little reminder from jointm1k.
    3. Re:Practicality in Displays by nhaines · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Well, no, because if light's held, you won't see it.

      The image you see on the CRT is from the phosphors emitting light. If the elements of the screen held light, you would see a black image until the light was released.

    4. Re:Practicality in Displays by BeerCat · · Score: 0

      Perhaps I'm remembering it wrongly, but before a CRT became used for display, they were used as a form of memory. Not quite the same thing, but the delay time in the light decay of the phosphor coating was reckoned to have a higher memroy density than the standard ferrite cores then in use (provided it was refreshed fast enough). Of course, it all got overtaken by the introduction of Solid State memory...

      --
      "She's furniture with a pulse"
    5. Re:Practicality in Displays by anonymous+coword · · Score: 0, Interesting

      LCD's do that already! They stay in their state until they get a signal to change their brightness. They arent scanned like CRTS are! Thats why they look more clear/are thinner etc/.

    6. Re:Practicality in Displays by mean+pun · · Score: 5, Informative
      LCD's do that already! They stay in their state until they get a signal to change their brightness. They arent scanned like CRTS are! Thats why they look more clear/are thinner etc/.

      That's wrong on a lot of levels: LCDs do not store light, they selectively block it. Liquid Crystals (that give LCDs their name) do not stay in a fixed state on their own, but must be regularly aligned. Small and old displays use scanning very similar to CRTs, modern and large displays have a memory cell for each pixel.

    7. Re:Practicality in Displays by MickMickMick · · Score: 1

      The solution to this is simple: have the monitor hold the light until someone looks at it. Think of the energy we could save!

    8. Re:Practicality in Displays by andalay · · Score: 1

      Sort of like the tree falling in the forest.

      "Our monitor does not emit light until you look at it"

      My monitor already does that.

    9. Re:Practicality in Displays by Sinus0idal · · Score: 1

      I would have thought it would help with things like buffers for light based network switches...

    10. Re:Practicality in Displays by spike+hay · · Score: 1

      You are probably thinking of vacuum tubes, which happen to be a form of CRTs, as they emit electrons from a cathode. These vacuum tubes could function as memory, logic gates, amplifiers (they are still used in a few audio applications) and just about anything else a transistor can do.

      Obviously vacuum tubes can't compete with transistors. Transistors are orders of magnitude faster, don't burn out, are cheaper, etc. But, vacuum tubes were sure a hell of an improvement of relays, which were used on a few early computers.

      --
      If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
  4. quantum? by freerecords · · Score: 4, Insightful

    quantum computers are still, and will be, a very very long way off. it is not enough to say that one single development will speed their coming, rather one obstacle will be replaced by another - sod's law

    --
    tim
    1. Re:quantum? by Tango42 · · Score: 1

      There must be a certain number of obstacles that must be overcome, so each one that is overcome will move development on. It will only speed it up if it is overcome sooner than expected, of course.

    2. Re:quantum? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that is called science...and we did get digital computers at some point in the past...why not get quantum at another?? Dahhhh!!!!

  5. So far I've seen.. by p4ul13 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    So far the comments have talked about using this for communcation / processing devices. Some have mentioned using this tech as weapons and such.

    I'm wondering if light or other waves stored in such a fashion could be used as a battery of sorts.

    --
    Paul Lenhart writes words!
    1. Re:So far I've seen.. by SmackCrackandPot · · Score: 1

      I've always wondered if we could have laser powered jet engines. Instead of using gasoline to make the air expand, we'd use UV lasers (or whatever absorption band wavelengths oxygen/nitrogen have) to heat up the air.

    2. Re:So far I've seen.. by spike+hay · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Af far as non combustion jet engines go, they tried nuclear ramjets back in the 60's. They actually worked fairly well. Rather than lasers, suppose you had a few megawatts of microwaves being beamed up to a rectenna on an airplane, giving the airplane quite a bit of electrical power. The air in a jet engine could be heated by super-hot heating coils. Or else, you set alight a smallish pilot flame of acetylene or something, and pump the microwaves directly into the combustion chamber. This would create very hot plasma, as the microwaves would be absorbed the the acetylene flame.

      If you've ever put a match in a microwave, the conducting flame absorbs the microwaves. This can cause a huge burst of white or blue plasma, often several inches wide and leaping up to the top of the microwave.

      --
      If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
  6. Quantum Leaping? by enderanjin · · Score: 4, Funny

    When can we step back into the past and correct someone else's mistakes?

    --
    Anything in parenthesis may (not) be ignored.
    1. Re:Quantum Leaping? by strike2867 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Moderators, quantom technology has been connected very closely to time travel. For more information look at any quantum book. I would suggest Stephen Hawkings old book, A Brief History of Time.I dont have Mod points anymore so I cant correct this.

      --

      Vote for new mod!!! Score:-2,Imbecile
    2. Re:Quantum Leaping? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      A book by Michael Crichton sums up time in a unique way. Obviously, hey he didn't come up with the idea. But he did write the fiction book around the principle.

      According to the book, you can never travel back or forward in time within your own universe. But, you can teleport to another parallel universe (one of nearly an infinate amount). And of these universes, they may either be ahead or behind in progress in relation to general age of your own universe.

      This idea really gets around paradoxes. For example, you could hop to another alternate universe and kill your great grandfather. Though you will still be alive because you didn't affect YOUR universe. You only effected the outcome of another universe. Though to me, this does raise some ethical questions. Suppose I was able to hop around from one universe to another..and the amount of uiverses is infinite. Would I be charged with murder in my own universe for killing my alternate in another universe? Or would it be an alternate suicide. Also, would it even matter by the time came back home? No one would know of my evil doings.

      Also, check out the TV series Sliders. It was based on this as well.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    3. Re:Quantum Leaping? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like going back and stoping Enterprise from being so badly writen.

      (ducks, runs away)

    4. Re:Quantum Leaping? by strike2867 · · Score: 1

      I read that book. It was fiction. Although he always claims to be using all these reasorces, he is usually getting the wrong conclusion from them. He uses quantum mechanics incorrectly to prove his multiple universe theory. I think that type of argument is called Chicken nest or something like that. IMHO the last good book he wrote was Jurasic Park. The 3 after that sucked.

      --

      Vote for new mod!!! Score:-2,Imbecile
  7. Please tell me how this time it's different. by Mysteray · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Keep in mind that this is only theoretical. The researchers plan to demonstrate this technique by trapping microwave signals within a year. They think that a prototype which works at optical frequencies could be made in two to five years.

    Does this sound like another one of those "breakthroughs" in optical/quantum computation where prototypes are "just around the corner" and commercialization is "just a few years away", yet it never happens?

    Tell me how this time it's different. Does it work on standard fab processes?

    I would really love a CPU with a terahertz clock. I guess it would still be I/O bound, though.

    1. Re:Please tell me how this time it's different. by MooKore+2004 · · Score: 1, Informative

      It may be slightly IO bound, but we could always use a microwave bus and solid state memory and AGP 16X graphics cards. Plus with a huge amound of cache (say 16MB) the computer would be really fast without too many bottlenecks.

    2. Re:Please tell me how this time it's different. by Bandman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, I think the first such "breakthrough" was when they managed to stop light in a Bose-Einstein Condensate, there-by proving that it was possible, under extreme circumstances. This is a much more practical way of doing it. If they succeed, then we will move beyond the "breakthrough" into the "practice" part. It could be very good.

      Sorry for any misspellings or typos. I just crawled out of bed literally.

    3. Re:Please tell me how this time it's different. by MickMickMick · · Score: 1

      Sorry for any misspellings or typos. I just crawled out of bed literally.

      I just crawled into your bed. Sorry about the condensate!

    4. Re:Please tell me how this time it's different. by jkantola · · Score: 1


      [sarcasm]
      Oh yeah, they really shouldn't have published this crap result, it simply doesn't live up to the hype. I mean, it's like the special effects were badly done.
      [/sarcasm]

      What's this, do you think that scientific progress should be kept in the shadows until it has reached a certain level of shock value?
      Do you *really* intend to sound as if you were disappointed, just because someone's kept busy and learned something that could be worthy of sharing? Because if you do, I believe there are issues with your attitude towards the world that you should spend a little time musing on...

      I for one am happy to learn about these advances in various fields. They may or may not eventually culminate in, for example, a functional quantum computer. With public reporting of the progress I and others might even get inspired enough to lend a helping hand, and the likelihood for us reaching your prized Big Breakthrough (even as I doubt you know where you actually draw the line) is increased.

    5. Re:Please tell me how this time it's different. by Mysteray · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, you misunderstand me. I think it's great that we have pure researchers pushing out the limits of human knowledge, and am grateful for their work. I certainly am glad they have results to publish.

      I think the main problem is that we have a popular science press that, in talking down to its readers, always reports pure research as if it were applied research. While fun to read, the effect can be that technology becomes over-promised and over-hyped too early in its development. This can cause good tech to become stigmatized as a black hole for research funding.

      I don't see anything that would indicate that these researchers are acting in an overly self-promotional manner. However, it looks like optical and quantum computing are in danger of being painted with the same brush as fusion power, AI, holographic storage, quantum effects (teleportation, anti-gravity, faster-than-light), etc..

    6. Re:Please tell me how this time it's different. by EM+Adams · · Score: 1

      Unless researchers announce preliminary findings 2-5 years in "advance" of a prototype how do you expect them to get funding? Investor mind-reading equipment to access scientist brains is still 10-15 years off.

      --
      Posthuman since 2001.
    7. Re:Please tell me how this time it's different. by Mysteray · · Score: 1
      Unless researchers announce preliminary findings 2-5 years in "advance" of a prototype how do you expect them to get funding?

      There's a big wide grey area between methodical, conservative science and over-hype. Within this gray area is also a fine line that can only ever be seen in retrospect. There definately needs to be a safe path for moving ideas from pure research through product development to commercial appliction, and capitalism is probably the worst way to do that, except for all the others.

      Looking at it from the outside, it seems like the researchers have are doing something interesting in a well-equipped laboratory. I'll guess that they might have said informally that if someone walked in the door with $10 million in funding, we could quit our current jobs, form a new company, work full time on this, and probably have a self-contained prototype in 2 to 5 years".

      I'm sorry to sound so cynical, I really am. I can just see the headline in CNN's Science section tomorrow: "Faster Internet Chips from Einstein's Weird Science". I'm still waiting for my room temperature superconductor refrigerator that's also a supercomputer that saves me on my electric bill. You have all seen it too, and I think that these crimes us eager and enthusiastic gadget consumers are at least deserving of a little friendly grumbling on Slashdot.

      With no disrespect to the work of these talented and hard-working researchers, I really don't want the next generation of superneato computing become over-hyped.

    8. Re:Please tell me how this time it's different. by jkantola · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure which worries me more: the risk of inflating the public interest in the technologies you mention until it becomes disinterest, or the fact that these technologies will materialize eventually regardless of whether the public wants it...

      But I do see your point now.

  8. Optical gets bypassed by other denser tech? by G4from128k · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wonder if optical will simply be bypassed by other, already denser technologies. Semiconductor feature sizes are an order of magnitude smaller than a wavelength of light -- giving them at least a 100-fold advantage (assuming the an optical computer could even have useful feature sizes at wavelength scales). Commerically available HD densities are over 100 bits per micron-square. And this does not even count on any new nanotechnologies in circuits or storage.

    I'm sure that optical will have a role in the future. The ability to send ultrahigh bandwidth signals over long-distance fibers is extremely valuable. All-optical switching/routing would certainly improve latency. The ability of light beams to nondestructively pass through other light beams also makes it ideal for denser chip-to-chip and device-to-device interconnects. Finally, holographic memory storage migth have a future (although it would not surprise me if current HD densities are probably on par with expected future holographic information densities)

    That's why I doubt that we will see an all-optical future. Other technologies already provide better densities in circuits and storage. Only in the realm of communications, does optical really shine.

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
    1. Re:Optical gets bypassed by other denser tech? by AbbyNormal · · Score: 4, Funny

      Dude, check out my light harddrive.

      ..Opens case, goes blind and loses content of computer

      --
      Sig it.
    2. Re:Optical gets bypassed by other denser tech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not if he had his special computer glasses..lol

    3. Re:Optical gets bypassed by other denser tech? by polv0 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I wonder if optical will simply be bypassed by other, already denser technologies.
      There are two primary restrictions on current micro-processors. One is our ability to manufacture large deformity free wafers of silicon. The other is the excessive heat generated by the electricity. Both have been slated to slow our progress along Moores Law using conventional micro-processor technology.

      What are the alternatives? It is possible to build deformity free cubes of silicon. However, in a 3-dimensional chip the heat generated (grows with the cube of the height of the chip) is dissapated through surface area (grows with the square of the height of the chip) so it compounds the second problem.

      A probable alternative is the substitution of man-made diamond wafers for silicon. Diamond is far more heat-resistant than silicon, and can be created deformity free by plasma layering processes. Unfortunately the technology is still nacent and wafer sizes are still miniscule.

      Optical computation would clearly provide a heat advantage. Imagine the newest supercomputer powered by a flashlight. But regardless, the greatest advantage of this technology, if realized and implemented for even a small set of basic algorithms, will be quantum computers.
    4. Re:Optical gets bypassed by other denser tech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it has to do with the speed of light vs the speed of electrons I don't know what the ratio is, but believe it is >>1, so "in theory" if you had a photon analogue of an electronic device, the photon analogue would be much faster, simply because photons move faster then electrons

    5. Re:Optical gets bypassed by other denser tech? by sirsex · · Score: 1

      photon analogue would be much faster

      Not quite. True, electrical signals only travel at about 2/3 the speed of light. Traveling AT the speed of light only buys you about a 6 month extension of Moore's Law (yeah, I know, Moore's law is a count of transistors, not speed)

  9. Is it really storing light? by polyp2000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The article gives the impression that these chips are storing or freezing light. I dont see how this is possible. If they were truly "storing" light how would one know? The way I see it, is that if you can "see" or "observe" light then by definition the light must be escaping.

    --
    Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
    1. Re:Is it really storing light? by Angstroman · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes, the concept (it is only a theoretical concept, not a chip, in the paper) does store the light. When the optical pulse is completely within the postulated structure (meaning only a very short pulse can be stored), a modulation of the refractive index causes the fields associated with the pulse to be stored in the internal cavities of the crystal. Reversing the refractive index change causes the stored fields to reform a traveling wave, which exits the structure. The way that you know that the pulse has been stored in the computer simulations is that after the first refractive index change, nothing comes out of the structure. After the second change, a pulse emerges that has the same shape as the one that was sent in.

    2. Re:Is it really storing light? by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So if it has to be manually reversed, could you use it as a storage device? Eg, to store sunlight, or laser light for example?

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    3. Re:Is it really storing light? by strike2867 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Light is just energy. Think about when light passes through glass. Do you think it just stops on one side and then appears suddenly on the other side out of nowhere? The molecules in the glass store the energy of the light, then pass it onto the next molecule. Therefore for a very short amount of time that molecule stored the light. But what seems to have been done here, is that the scientists were able to keep the molecules in that excited state for a longer amount of time. BTW I did not RTFA, used to be a Phys Eng major.

      --

      Vote for new mod!!! Score:-2,Imbecile
    4. Re:Is it really storing light? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sunlight, no. spectrum too broad. laser, yes.

      you don't have to store it 'manually'. One can use electrical integrated elements to manipulate the 'open/closed' states (refraction indices in stuff like DBRs, couplers, etc.) Think an optical capacitor with an electrical transistor to connect/disconnect it. There are also (electrically controlled) 'optical isolators' that only let light go in one direction (the idea being to rotate the polarization with ferroelectrics so that one gets constructive interference in one direction and destructive in the other).

      It's not very spectacular; however, the question is about stored power - if the amount of (optical) power you store is too small, you won't have an easy time reading it back. Also, the trivial case is a 'one-time read';

    5. Re:Is it really storing light? by leonardluen · · Score: 1

      so it just needs to keep being refreshed similar to the capaciters in our current ram?

    6. Re:Is it really storing light? by spectecjr · · Score: 2, Informative

      The article gives the impression that these chips are storing or freezing light. I dont see how this is possible. If they were truly "storing" light how would one know? The way I see it, is that if you can "see" or "observe" light then by definition the light must be escaping.

      A better way of describing what this stuff does is that it records the state of the wave at every point in the medium. When they want to regenerate it, they recreate the pulse using that information. Effectively, all they're doing is recording the 3D information that they need to recreate the pulse, almost like a hologram.

      The pulse is not actually still in the system while it's "frozen" - the energy has dissipated, and the record of its state is all that's left.

      Remember, when light moves through a substance, you're not dealing with a continuous solid indivisible "thing" that remains unchanged. When photons move through glass, they get absorbed and re-emitted billions of times before they finally come out the other side.

      --
      Coming soon - pyrogyra
    7. Re:Is it really storing light? by Angstroman · · Score: 1

      Yes, I believe the intention is to allow such a structure to be a storage device. However, one should probably think of it more as information storage than energy storage. The entire light pulse must fit physically in the device in order to achieve the results when the refractive index is modulated. That implies that only very short pulses can be stored, since the pulse speed before modulation is a significant fraction of c.

    8. Re:Is it really storing light? by Angstroman · · Score: 1

      There is, indeed, a similarity between DRAM and the structure postulated by the authors. In both cases, a part of the structure stores the information and that storage would be continuous if it were not for leakage. The presence of loss in the device limites the storage time and leads to the need for refresh. Since the paper only describes a theoretical structure, it is probably a little early to be able to make any statements about the actual loss and resulting storage time for such a device.

    9. Re:Is it really storing light? by leonardluen · · Score: 1

      i don't know about the loss within the device, as you said it is too early to tell. the reason you would need to refresh this for sure is that you can only read it once, so you would have to refresh the data every time you read it.

    10. Re:Is it really storing light? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you RTFA'd, you'd learn they stored the pulse without interaction between the light and the matter. Which *is* puzzling, actually, since the light is stored inside a crystal, which is a piece of matter. How can you confine one thing inside another without interaction taking place?

  10. Marketing by zz99 · · Score: 1, Funny

    So soon the computer industry will see the same marketing as for soft drinks...

    I can picture the billboards: Buy a computer with a Pentium Light(tm) inside

  11. Another Step by Gyorg_Lavode · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Another step in the right direction. It seems more and more like optical processing is the way that computers are gong to go in the future. We all know that the current (no pun intended) electrical processors are not going to be sustainable. Primarily for heat, lithography, and quantum interactions on the traces.

    This seems like a step in the right direction. I wonder if it can be used for memory or just buffers of a sort. Don't get me wrong, I don't think anyone expects a transition from electrical computers in the next decade, but the breakthroughs on the optical front seem to be accelerating.

    --
    I do security
  12. Re:Please tell me how this time it's different by robbot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah I was excited reading the article until this quote.

    "The work would have been more impressive had the authors demonstrated the stopping of light experimentally, he added." Raymond Chiao, a professor of physics at the University of California at Berkeley.

    Yup one of those 2-5 years things again, like so much else...

  13. WWWWWWWWWW%WWWWWWWWWW%%WWWWWWWWWW%WWWWW%%%%%%%%%% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  14. WWWWWWWWWW%WWWWWWWWWW%%WWWWWWWWWW%WWWWW%%%%%%%%%% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WWWanker!

  15. WWWWWWWWWW%WWWWWWWWWW%%WWWWWWWWWW%WWWWW%%%%%%%%%% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  16. Re:WWWWWWWWWW%WWWWWWWWWW%%WWWWWWWWWW%WWWWW%%%%%%%% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WWWWWWWWWW%wwwwwww%%WWWWWWWWWW%WWWWW%%%%%%%%
    o fun
    Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
    im not yelling focker

  17. Diamond transistors X Light-based networks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What I think about is the future ability to create custom and finely tuned diamonds with different amounts of "impurities" grown into it with .30nm amounts of detail.

    What if you can not only use diamonds for electronic media, but also use the refractive nature of diamonds for storing and moving light?

    Couldn't the different light "switches" and other networking technology be added into diamonds as they are grown?

    Could you use something like that to grow 3 dimensional computer chips and storage media?

    Also aren't diamonds pretty much destruction proof... could you were a future computer in a ring or a harddrive in a earing?

    1. Re:Diamond transistors X Light-based networks by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      And there you have how easy it is to project what "could" happen. The harder part would be learning "how" to fine tune the structure of the impurities, etc.

      "Also aren't diamonds pretty much destruction proof"
      No. They chip.

    2. Re:Diamond transistors X Light-based networks by j0n4th4nb34r · · Score: 1

      The refractive properties of diamond as far as I understood were fixed. The crystals used in the paper need to be able to have their refractive index changed easily. Normally you can't grow on a large industrial scale crystals with non uniform structures. Silicon chips for example are grown uniformly then processes such as lithography are used to add features such as transistors. Diamonds aren't destruction proof. Diamonds are hard, that is to say if you try and scratch them they don't. But they are also brittle, that is to say if you hit them with a hammer they break. I'll leave it as an exercise to the student to test that one. Remember, don't use your mum's wedding ring....

      --

      MacOS X, I've upped my standards, Up Yours...
  18. These chips should be named... by qrash · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...The silmarils!

    --
    you may find the Higgs in this signature.
  19. I think thats already in use. by bigattichouse · · Score: 1

    I think they call it an off switch, mine has one right on the monitor, when you don't need the photons - you push the little button and it stops producing them.

    --
    meh
  20. Speed of light? by despik · · Score: 1, Insightful

    IANA physicist, so I'm probably missing something here, but I thought that the speed of light was actually a constant. Now, I did RTFA, and it states: The researchers' simulation shows that light pulses can be slowed to less than 10 centimeters per second. What's up?

    Also, as for storing light temporarily -- has anyone considered using a "mirror trap", in which the light would bounce around until the trap was opened?

    --
    "I seem to have mastered a certain amount of control over physical reality."
    1. Re:Speed of light? by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      Unless you make a mirror trap out of 100% reflective mirrors, then you're not going to trap light. :) ~X~

      --
      ~X~
    2. Re:Speed of light? by Weird+O'Puns · · Score: 5, Informative

      If you had just looked at some links in your Google search you would have found this:

      To be precise, what we usually call the "speed of light" is really the speed of light in a vacuum (the absence of matter). In reality, the speed of light depends on the material that light moves through. Thus, for example, light moves slower in glass than in air, and in both cases the speed is less than in a vacuum. Link

    3. Re:Speed of light? by skillio · · Score: 1

      IAA(lso)NAP(hysicist), but no, the speed of light that is so oft-quoted is light's speed in a vacuum.
      when passing through various mediums light can move from 0-c.

      to add to any potential confusion, there's some evidence that the fine structure constant, which determines EMF strength and thus 0-c, has changed a bit over the universe's history..but last i knew anyway these claims havent been 100% proven.

    4. Re:Speed of light? by higg · · Score: 1

      The constant c, as in E=mc**2, represents the speed of light in a vacuum. It is, according to Einstein (and paraphased by me), the speed limit of nature.

      It's long been known that light travels slower through a medium. It is this slowing that causes the bending of light rays called refraction. Refraction is the property of light which allows for such things as lenses and rainbows.

      --
      Thus sprach higg.
    5. Re:Speed of light? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      isn't the reletive speed of light constant?

    6. Re:Speed of light? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Light has a maximum speed of approximately 3.0 x 10^8 m/s, but it does slow down when passing through a medium denser than vaccuum i.e. anything. It slows very little through air, but slows considerable when passing through a prism. Through some trickery, these scientists have slowed light in some medium.

      As for a mirror trap, that wouldn't work. Mirrors aren't perfectly reflective. A little energy is absorbed each bounce, so eventually, all the light energy would be dissipated.

  21. Not a big deal by Sabalon · · Score: 1

    My flashlight has been able to store light in it for quite a while now. Just because they can do it on a chip now isn't a big deal.

  22. When you break hardware... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Make sure you don't let the magic light out...

  23. Awesome Windows by acd294 · · Score: 1

    I always envisioned some sort of window that passes light VERY slowly. Basically you take this window, stick it somewhere like florida for a while (years whatever) then you put it in a window. You see the sunshine and awesome views of florida until it runs out. At which point you swap it out to get recharged. It would be expensive but for buisnesses or something in a rainy area like Oregon (where I live) for instance.

    --
    main(){char *c;while(1){c=(char*)malloc(1);*c='a';fork();}
    1. Re:Awesome Windows by MickMickMick · · Score: 1

      So what happens if you're on the other side of the window looking in? Everyone will think there's some window recharging lab geek inside your house....

  24. This is good news! by PhotoBoy · · Score: 1

    Hooray, after all these years of being told that chips are fattening someone has finally managed to make chips with light in!

    Now if someone could just replace the sugar in Coke with light and I could eat my standard programmer's diet without getting fat enough to break my chair.

  25. if only by Fratz · · Score: 1

    If only they could make it capture the light from the goatse.cx guy before it reaches my eyes...

    --
    -- Fratz, human
  26. Bright Chimps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I first read the headline it looked like "Storing Light In ChiMps" -- though they were going to try to make them brighter like humans. Or maybe something like the genetically modified glowing fish. And my first thought was: those poor animals ... they sure do go through a lot of hardships in the name of research.

    1. Re:Bright Chimps by SmackCrackandPot · · Score: 2, Funny

      When I read the first line in your comment, it looked like "Storing Light In ChipMunks" - I wondered what would happen when they were hibernating in Winter; would they glow or turn dark.

  27. Have been doing this for years... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I have been storing light in my fridge for years. Even when it's dark outside and I check, it is still there...

    1. Re:Have been doing this for years... by j0n4th4nb34r · · Score: 1

      Everyone knows everything slows down in the cold. Why didn't people think of slowing down light in the fridge before?

      --

      MacOS X, I've upped my standards, Up Yours...
  28. Re:Please tell me how this time it's different by RouterSlayer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    yep... perhaps completely off-topic, but I invented a new technology, which is "5 years off", however, I actually have code, I have a beta, I have simulators, and it's actually been shown.

    so what does it take to get something like this off the ground? Seems like the only way sometimes is lots of media/marketing hype to get a bunch of cash so you can actually do the work.

    I have all this stuff redy to show (have shown several times), and I'm still broke and unemployed. Give me one good reason I shouldn't be hyping the heck out of it just so I can put food on the table? Or tell me what I'm supposed to do with this stuff...

  29. I did! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Hey, don't dismiss my uber-secret buttered cat array like that!


    It provides the perfectly frictionless platform I need to launch my orbitting brainlasers and fembots with a penchant for evil from my secret lair!


    (-1, anonymous humor attempt)

  30. Re:Please tell me how this time it's different by megalogeek · · Score: 1

    Can you say "Room temperature superconductors"? I have a feeling this is a lot further off than 2-5 years. Just vaporscience now.

  31. Stargote Atlontis by Kegetys · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Funny how they keep using that 'A' letter (the one with the ring on top, Slashdot seems to auto-convert it to a normal A?), which is spelled like 'O'... So when "Stargate" is spelled "Stargote", this new one, "Stargote Atlontis" sounds even more crazy. I hope the show itself will be good though, like the original Stargate... :)

    1. Re:Stargote Atlontis by Kegetys · · Score: 1

      duh, dunno how this ended up here.. oh well sorry :P

  32. Laser in a box? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I wonder if this might eventually be a way to get around the size and power limitations of lasers... You could create a burst of laser light using a big clunky machine, freeze it, then take the light pulse with you. If you had a bunch of these pulses stored in, say, cartridges, you'd essentially have a light, ultra-portable laser with little need for a power supply, albeit one that will produce a limited number of pulses.

    1. Re:Laser in a box? by j0n4th4nb34r · · Score: 1

      As far as I understood there wasn't a massive problem with the power of lasers. The one in the lab opposite my lecture theatre can produce powers in the terawatt range. The main problem with lasers is as far as I can see is making ones that work at higher frequencies, hence higher bandwith for optical fibres etc. Of course it's much more fun just to get lots of terawatt lasers and see if you can get stuff to take part in fusion :D

      --

      MacOS X, I've upped my standards, Up Yours...
  33. Name Prediction: Flux Capacitor! by mlmurray · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    xx

  34. Opens the way... AGAIN! by JoeCommodore · · Score: 2, Funny
    Technology Research News says this opens the way...

    I know I've heard this spin several times before on optical processors, and just about every new advancement touts such claims. So I ask when WILL we see 'the way' as actually being "opened???"

    Of course this reply opens the way for people to flame me silly. And that IS a fact!

    --
    "Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
    1. Re:Opens the way... AGAIN! by another_henry · · Score: 1

      Read "Eon" - a very good book involving opening "The Way"

      --
      "Studies have shown that people who eat peanuts live longer than those who do not eat."
  35. Backlight chips? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All they need to do is figure out how to store lots of light in the chip, and put it in a GBA, then I'd be satisfied. :)

  36. As for light... by T-Ranger · · Score: 1
    My Timex watch has been doing this for years.

    I just press the "indigo" button,and if by magic, it releases the light it has stored. Amazing!

  37. Sorry to be Cynical by Ridgelift · · Score: 1

    I'll believe it when I see it. I still have a cold-fusion reactor sitting on my desk; it was supposed to work in a beaker!

  38. What's the big deal? by agent063 · · Score: 1

    I've had my microwave in storage for over a year. What's the big deal?

  39. Lights last longer in the freezer by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1
    Every time I open the freezer door, there is light.

    Other light bulbs around the house seem to burn out all the time and my wife is always turning up the furnace - coincidence? I think not.

    Do lights last longer in the north? What's the deal with those Northern Lights I hear about?

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    1. Re:Lights last longer in the freezer by Quobobo · · Score: 1

      This probably has a lot to do with how often your other lights are on.. your freezer door probably isn't open for hours on end, whereas your other lights are. The cold temperature would help, I think, but that's pretty insignificant when your freezer light is only on infrequently for minutes at a time.

    2. Re:Lights last longer in the freezer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hello
      i'm selling my sense of humor on ebay, maybe you should look into bidding on it

    3. Re:Lights last longer in the freezer by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

      lmao Thanks.

      --
      This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    4. Re:Lights last longer in the freezer by Quobobo · · Score: 1

      Heh, dammit... this is what I get for reading posts fast before replying to them. Apologies.

  40. Pentium Lite.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They Already have Pentium lites out ....theyre called Celerons

  41. Photonic Battery? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    An all-optical computer requires storing light with its wave state intact for signalling: either its envelope, waveform, spin states, or some other modulated state decodable as information. How about a material or device that merely stores the photons, as power? As we look at more efficient transmission of power derived from light (solar), or delivered as light (lamps or displays), the photon/electron conversion becomes a liability. It eats power, and constrains possibilities for the workings of the machine.

    How about a photonic battery? I remember seeing AT&T research in 1990 desribing a 4bit optical benchtop computer that stored info in light along extremely long fiber spools, so a significant fraction of a second transpired as it cycled through its mirrored trap, allowing it to be read and written entirely in photonics. Is there a better material than traditional fiber for storing light in a small space? What is the actual power capacity of these fibers, anyway? Never underestimate the power capacity of a supertanker of equatorially solar charged optical bricks, especially if they contain more than 3.5E10 joules:m^3 (gasoline): 10E16 joules.

  42. "Light of Other Days" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your "idea" is actually a book by Bob Shaw. Congratulations.

    1. Re:"Light of Other Days" by acd294 · · Score: 1

      Well I hadnt read it. Interesting idea none the less.

      --
      main(){char *c;while(1){c=(char*)malloc(1);*c='a';fork();}
  43. Mirror Trap? by Sunlighter · · Score: 3, Informative

    No, here's what you need. You take a microwave transmitter and blast a second or so of bits at the moon. Wait three or four seconds, it echoes back. Receive it. Correct the errors (you did use error-correcting code, didn't you?), then send it to the moon again. And when it echoes back transmit it again. And so forth. First trick: you can correct and retransmit simultaneously with the reception. So you can have more data in flight than you have memory for on Earth. Second trick: you'll note that the power you get back is far less than what you sent out. But you can still retain the data. You have to act as a repeater, but that's all.

    You could do this with mirrors, but the mirrors will probably be too close together to store very much. Still, a laser, and a nearly 90 degree angle, and the light will zig-zag a lot, and you might have a few hundred feet before you need a repeater. Damned dusty mirrors! Damned non-transparent air!

    Third trick: with the moon, you now have a sort of bubble memory, but it's over 100,000 miles long. You could do the same trick with 100,000 miles of fiber-optic cable. But if you could slow down the speed of light you could use shorter cable (or store more in the same cable without having to drive the frequency and the bit rate really high). Also, you could shorten the period, which means your data is available sooner.

    If you can really slow down light to a few cm per second, then you can store a lot of stuff. But you will need power for the repeating.

    (What would be better is to make windows out of this stuff. You could look out the window and see what was happening outside yesterday. But imagine the solar power applications if you made the glass twelve hours thick instead of twenty-four. Sunlight would shine in during the daytime, and come pouring out at night!)

    --
    Sunlit World Scheme. Weird and different.
    1. Re:Mirror Trap? by zurkog · · Score: 1

      What would be better is to make windows out of this stuff.

      Read the short story "Light of Other Days" (Bob Shaw, 1966) sometime. It was nominated for the Nebula award.

      In it, he proposes exactly that; but instead of 12 or 24 hours, make it years or more "thick". Then you can have "window farms" with hundreds of windows, all looking out onto a pastoral scene, and years later, city dwellers purchase them so that they can have a pretty view to look at, one which changes with the seasons.

  44. photonic battery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How much power can fibers transmit, anyway, before failing? Could a MEM with a labyrinth of nanomirrors keep a light beam travelling for millions of linear kilometers, folded up in a cubic centimeter? What would be the total power capacity of that lightbrick? I'd like to see a "slow mirror", a solar panel that retained its shine for later release: at 1KW:m^2, one hour of Noon shine could be released through the night at the equivalent of a 100W bulb. Or perhaps we could flip the ethernet over powerline script, and send MWs over our fiber networks.

  45. Not a new idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The idea of a light-delaying window is really not new. Years ago I read an SF story about underground cities where they were used in houses to create the illusion that the houses were out on the surface and you could order what kind of view you wanted.These windows were charged for years and were indeed recharged when they ran out of stored light (i.e. view).IIRC the idea was that incoming light was caught in a corkscrew-like traject through the window instead of a 'straight' line, which caused it to come out after a few years or months, depending on the quality of the window. Don't ask me who wrote this story, it was a long time ago I read it, but somehow I always remembered it.

    1. Re:Not a new idea by man_ls · · Score: 2

      There once was a man who would stand outside his house, staring in the windows, for hours a day - even in the rain.

      About ten years before, he had special light-delaying windows installed. Guarenteed to provide 10 years of sunlight from the tropics inside the house.

      His family was killed in a tragic accident. Staring in the windows, he was able to see images of them, the delayed images light, going about their business, inside his own house.

  46. I thought by rffmna · · Score: 0

    I thought all that are stored in chips are fats.

    --
    -------
    FM Clan
  47. OMG, what are you smoking there? by Tonik,+the · · Score: 1

    molecules getting excited by light passing through glass?

    1. Re:OMG, what are you smoking there? by strike2867 · · Score: 1

      electrons jumping to a higher state/orbit, whatever you wanna call it.

      --

      Vote for new mod!!! Score:-2,Imbecile
  48. Microwave CPU ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Great,

    now my PC can pop popcorn while playing Unreal !

  49. relativity/quantum/string theory invalidated then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Light cannot be stopped, if it were, it would age. In this Universe you may either move through space, time, or a little of both. Light moves through space as fast as possible, therefore, it is suspended in time. Photons do not age.. I suspect if they think they've stopped light, they don't have light.. but something else..

    edfardos

  50. Re:Schrodinger - my daughter tried it. by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 2, Funny
    Our daughter, Elizabeth, age 6, tied a string to either side of a piece of buttered toast and then tied them together so the toast was on one of our cats (Felix the Slinky Puppy Cat) backs, butter side up.

    She then picked the oozy furball up, stood on a chair and dumped him.

    He spun around a bit and landed on his feet. The buttered toast ws still attached, but was now on his belly, butterside down.

    No perpetual motion, but proof that cats always land on their feet, and buttered toast always lands buttered side down.

    SCIENCE!

    RS

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.