Slashdot Mirror


A Look at Photonic Clocking

zymano writes "In an article on the Electronic Engineering Times site James Siepmann shares a few thoughts about Photonic Clocking. Siepmann states: 'Copper interconnects are reaching their limit as data-transmission bandwidth and processor speed continue to rise. [..] Photonic clocking not only solves the limitations of electronic clocking, but also reduces jitter, skew, delay, crosstalk and power consumption while maintaining clock signal integrity for longer distances.'" Are Photonic Processors the next logical step, or will the almighty buck shuffle them aside because of cost?

130 comments

  1. Slashdot economics... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Are Photonic Processors the next logical step, or will the almighty buck shuffle them aside because of cost?

    Yeah, 'cause technology never gets cheaper. Hey, I've got an AT&T 8086 PC with a lovely green monitor that you can have for $5000, if you act now...

    1. Re:Slashdot economics... by jacksonic · · Score: 1

      Hell, I've got an AT&T 8086 with a COLOUR monitor for $4,800. Plus S&H and all applicable taxes.

    2. Re:Slashdot economics... by danila · · Score: 1

      Green is a color too, you know.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
  2. Economics? What's that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    " Are Photonic Processors the next logical step, or will the almighty buck shuffle them aside because of cost?"

    You tell us. Ultimately it's your present purchases that will fund it.

    --
    The "are you a script" word for today is rubbers.

  3. Ooooo! by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 3, Funny
    Yeah, 'cause technology never gets cheaper. Hey, I've got an AT&T 8086 PC with a lovely green monitor that you can have for $5000, if you act now...

    Hang on to it. In a few years, you can haul it down to Antiques Roadshow and have 'em tell you it's "worth between $2000 and $4000, but for insurance purposes..."

    --
    "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
    1. Re:Ooooo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1000-2000

  4. Did we skip microwaves? Millimeterwaves? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Aren't there like 5 or 6 orders of magnitude between optical frequencies and current clock rates? And last I checked, copper waveguide does
    just fine for at least 3 or 4 of those. So how is it that we are "reaching the limitations" of copper?

  5. Potentially a good idea, but only that. by Doug+Coulter · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Nice thing about a pulse of light is that it can be made to reach lots of places at the same time, or nearly so. Just a normal burst of light from a point source has a spherical wavefront, but this can be modified by optics in various ways. Having designed plenty of really fast stuff and having had to deal with skew problems, I can see the advantadge, if real use can be made of it. I think it might even be possible on silicon, which would be required for quick adoption -- after all, the LSI only has to receive, the clock light source can be made of anything. Making a hybrid of course drives costs way up, though. but at current profit margins for fast cpu's this may not be much of a real issue.

    1. Re:Potentially a good idea, but only that. by IceFoot · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because light travels at ... drumroll ... the SPEED OF LIGHT! Which is, like, really fast.

      Whereas an electrical pulse on a copper wire travels at ... nearly the speed of light, which is... also really fast.

      Wait. What's the advantage of photonics?

    2. Re:Potentially a good idea, but only that. by utnow · · Score: 2, Informative

      less heat, less energy consumption, potential for smaller pathways, and higher speed (by definition thanks to the tidbit of information you shared with us just there.)

      to name a few...

    3. Re:Potentially a good idea, but only that. by SilverspurG · · Score: 2, Insightful
      less heat, less energy consumption, potential for smaller pathways, and higher speed
      Indeed. You've hit the nail on the head. Of course, the majority of jokesters around here will probably continue to ridicule the concept in other threads, mostly because they don't know what they're talking about. The difference between current processor technology and photonic processors is the same as the difference between copper wire network connections and fiberoptic connections.

      Fiberoptics are superior to purely electrical designs but only after they've overcome the initial investment hurdle for design and implementation.
      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    4. Re:Potentially a good idea, but only that. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I think some of us might be sceptical about the idea because we remember seeing it on Tomorrow's World about 10 years ago, when it was being touted as almost ready for mainstream. The big advantage they were stating then was a much smaller die size, since photon paths could cross, while electron paths can not.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:Potentially a good idea, but only that. by SilverspurG · · Score: 1

      The idea certainly isn't new but the field of fiberoptics has come a long way in the last ten years. With advances in material design and more experience with the behavior of light and modulation of a light signal maybe we finally have the real technology to make this work.

      da Vinci designed a flying machine in 1500, some 400 years before the Wright brothers took off.

      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
  6. What? by scheme · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Are Photonic Processors the next logical step, or will the almighty buck shuffle them aside because of cost?

    If photonic processors go into widespread usage, it will probably be because of the almighty buck and companies deciding that they can make more of it by producing photonic processors.

    Profits and competition are the main reason for a lot of the recent advances in processor performance. Look at the processor introductions back when 486 and pentium processors were around and Intel didn't have any credible competition.

    --
    "When you sit with a nice girl for two hours, it seems like two minutes. When you sit on a hot stove for two minutes, it
    1. Re:What? by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      Profits and competition are the main reason for a lot of the recent advances in processor performance. Look at the processor introductions back when 486 and pentium processors were around and Intel didn't have any credible competition.

      Wow. Only on Slashdot would THIS be considered insightful.

      There were *MORE* options for chips back then, not less. MIPS. Alpha. Power. 680x0. AMD 486. Cx 486.

      No innovation here... (!)

      Intel has pretty much always "pushed it". Their projected timelines for Mhz improvement has been fairly trackable, and fairly steady since the 1970s.

      So, how is it that you can imply that there was no competition for Intel back in the 90s, and still ignore all the above?

      This should have been moderated -1 TOLL

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    2. Re:What? by scheme · · Score: 1
      There were *MORE* options for chips back then, not less. MIPS. Alpha. Power. 680x0. AMD 486. Cx 486.

      In the consumer market you had a choice between Intel and it's clones (Cyrix, IDT, AMD). By the time the Pentium and PII processors were around only Intel offered reasonable performance. Alpha, power, mips weren't an option for consumer systems. The 680x0 systems were only used for apple systems.

      The situation now is about the same, for consumer pcs you have a choice between power and intel/amd. The difference is that the amd cpus are price and performance competitive with intel chips.

      However my original comments were about innovations and intel's in the pc market.

      Intel has pretty much always "pushed it". Their projected timelines for Mhz improvement has been fairly trackable, and fairly steady since the 1970s.

      Look at this graph and you'll notice that transisitor counts and processor introductions started leveling off after the 486 intro and didn't pick up until just after the P3 intro when the athlon came out and started putting up performance numbers that matched or beat the P3 processors.

      --
      "When you sit with a nice girl for two hours, it seems like two minutes. When you sit on a hot stove for two minutes, it
    3. Re:What? by pipingguy · · Score: 1


      There is no reason for much faster processing outside of specialty applications. The only possible use (for the average computer owner) is digitizing video more fastly.

      Then again, marketing can be an amazing thing and convince people that they NEED something that they really don't. This type of hype will be going down the tubes as more and more people discover that what's being tossed at them is just more blinky lights and fancy buzzwords.

  7. huh? slow news day? then I troll for fun and pro.. by MegaFur · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Are Photonic Processors the next logical step, or will the almighty buck shuffle them aside because of cost?

    This makes it sound like "the almighty buck" is the bad guy. I think this is one of those times when that's not the case. If fully photonic processors turn out to work best, then that's what we'll see. If they're not, and if the article claim that copper interconnects are reaching their limit is true, then we'll seem some hybrids. Rock on.

    This whole article seems like an attempt to pad out a slow news day. Maybe we can turn this article into something useful, or at least more entertaining. We could start a flamewar! Yeah!


    ----------

    <enganging fake troll mode>It's gotta be Photonic chips all the way man!!! Copper procs, yer all gonna burn in silicon hell!! yeah, burn baby burn! I unleash light-based clocking on all you 1nf1d3l5!!

    (etc)

    --
    Furry cows moo and decompress.
  8. Anyone else... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... read that as Photonic Cloaking?

    1. Re:Anyone else... by whiteranger99x · · Score: 2, Funny

      I actually read that as photonic cooking...but to each their own :)

      --
      Join the TWIT army now!
    2. Re:Anyone else... by LordHatrus · · Score: 1

      Well, we could see early market share going predominately Intel Corp. Which would make them synonyms, really.

    3. Re:Anyone else... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      No, I read it as "Photonic Clicking". Damn noisy light particles.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    4. Re:Anyone else... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually light is noisy - try googling "Photon Shot Noise" - due to uncertaintly prinicple. It follows a poisson distribution and hence

      noise = SQRT(mean_Number_photons)

  9. Re:huh? slow news day? then I troll for fun and pr by NitsujTPU · · Score: 2, Funny

    Dude, you and your photonic chips can suck my voltage.

    No, this isn't just a copper out, I'm serious. You photonic people seem to think that we're living in a dark age. If photonic processors were at all realistic, we all would have seen the light long ago.

    Anyway, take your Star Wars chip and put it in a country where people have never seen George Lucas's masterpiece, Episode 1.

  10. I bow down to our Almighty Buck overlords by davidwr · · Score: 1, Funny

    Touche.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:I bow down to our Almighty Buck overlords by nutshell42 · · Score: 3, Funny
      You mean:

      "I for one welcome our Almighty Buck overlords... personally. Just keep sending them my way."

      --
      Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
  11. Article light on details by Steve525 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The article didn't say a whole lot, did it? It just said, "Gee, wouldn't photonic clocking be nice". It didn't say a whole lot about how, and whether it's feasible.

    So, I'll quickly fill in what I know. To do clock distribution you need two types of components: waveguides and detectors. Let's assume you are going to work in silicon...

    Waveguides function as the optical wiring, and includes things like bends and splitters. Although perhaps not trivial, it is relative straight-forward to make waveguides in or on silicon. Detectors, on the other hand, are not so easy, at least at the wavelength most people are interested in, 1550 nm. There's a number of people researching Ge growth for detectors on Si, and this does have promise, but it's not ready yet. Another option would be bonding InGaAs, but that might always be too expensive.

    Now, if you want to do full up optical communication, on chip, you'll want modulators, too. These have been demonstrated by Intel and Cornell in silicon, but only at speeds around 1 Ghz. Optical amplifiers would be nice, too, and this has been demonstrated (using Raman amplification) by Intel and UCLA. (I'm not sure Raman amplification can give you the sorts of amplification and efficiency you really need, though).

    (Sorry, I won't be able to respond to any replies; at least not until Monday. I'm off to bed and I'm not planning to be near a computer tomorrow).

    1. Re:Article light on details by (negative+video) · · Score: 2, Informative
      Detectors, on the other hand, are not so easy, at least at the wavelength most people are interested in, 1550 nm.
      Too true. However, this page says LightTime LLC, whose Chief Research Officer wrote the article being discussed, is working with mode-locked lasers centered at 860 nanometers. That's a piece of cake for silicon to detect (although making those lasers cheap, reliable, and phase-lockable will be a nice trick.)
    2. Re:Article light on details by 2.246.1010.78 · · Score: 1

      I'd say Semiconductor Optical Amplifiers (SOA, google for it) are better candidates for the amplification. And they are already at 40GBit/s, but again only on InP or GaAs basis.

    3. Re:Article light on details by Channing · · Score: 1
      > (although making those lasers cheap, reliable, and phase-lockable will be a nice trick.

      I did some research on this about 10 years ago which has come a long way since. Here's the first paper in bulk optics. We created both homodyne and heterodyne phase lock loops with two semiconductor lasers. In the heterodyne case we could lock with up to 24 GHz frequency offset.

      A lot of the original work for this was done at UCL, check out their list of papers looking for 'phase-lock loop'. I believe they have also demonstrated this on chips too.

      Channing

  12. Why not the whole chip... by mikael · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Assuming that the clock circuity takes up 30% of the chip, wouldn't manufacturing a chip with both photonic and electrical circuitry be more expensive than just manufacturing a purely photonic chip?

    --
    Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    1. Re:Why not the whole chip... by pkhuong · · Score: 1

      One word: how?

      Seriously, while it is possible to do optical switching, methods either are inefficient or need hugely powerful light sources. There is some research to alleviate the problem _in Si_, but it's still only research, years away from practical use. As it is, I think that using optics only for interconnects is an already doable way of improving performance, and not just within the chip. Content associative memories (which can be built with SLMs, passive optics and cameras) can greatly help tasks like DB querying, but (I suppose), could also be used to improve communications between a large number of not-so-loosely-interconnected-anymore processors (something similar to Linda tuplespace in hardware).

      --
      Try Corewar @ www.koth.org - rec.games.corewar
  13. Re:All this Technical Mumbo-Jumbo by Rei · · Score: 2, Funny

    Here, let me explain. The processor is made from a neutronium-alloy, which siphons quantum energy from a Sea of Dirac to produce a photonic current. This is channelled via plasma conduits to the high-frequency phase conducer, where creates a precision clock signal with an error margin of less than 0.000000386 parsecs.

    --
    You look beautiful! Incidentally, my favorite artist is Picasso.
  14. One question by CZA2006 · · Score: 0

    How would this affect heat?

  15. Aww... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought this was an article about overclocking.

    *goes back to read the Gentoo forum*

  16. If we had these now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would be interesting if we had these now in CPU cores.

    Intel wouldn't be constrained as much by the overheating issue which has stopped them at 4 GHz, and forced them to go to dual cores. They'd have a lot further to go before their design inefficienies had caught up with them.

    Oh well. One can always dream of a 40 GHz GPU. :(

  17. What a concept by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...But what ever happened to large-scale clock-less design? Has it been abandoned as trends go?

  18. Not to mention... by Sensible+Clod · · Score: 3, Insightful

    clockless CPU's, which of course--wait for it--don't need a clock. (I realize that other system parts may still need it.) Every once in a while, I hear a tiny thing about clockless chips, but it seems like the Big 2 don't want anything said about them.

    Reminder: this comment is on topic.

    --

    The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
    1. Re:Not to mention... by Lehk228 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      i doubt that clockless chips are not talked about due to any sort of collusion, but rather the nasty hurdles in programming especially at a low level, with clockless chips there is no more 'tick' no purely step-by-step execution and simultanious execution of complex code is nasty especially trying to work out timing of code when there is no universal timer across the chip.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    2. Re:Not to mention... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The reason you don't see asynchronous chips is that it's damn near impossible to guarantee that they work.

      With standard clocked CPUs, you can draw a box around the chip, or part of it, and treat it like a black box. Signal in, signal out, clock: change any and all of these to guarantee/profile your behavior. That doesn't work on async design. There's no way you could test it all and have any confidence that you did it right.

    3. Re:Not to mention... by sribe · · Score: 1

      Clockless logic is far, far more complex to design. That is all that is holding it back, not some mysterious pointless collusion.

    4. Re:Not to mention... by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      At the chip level of gates, designers usually aren't executing sequences of instructions (except in microcode). VHDL and VeriLog programming is "simultaneous", accounting for propagation delays. Those programmers operate on clock cycles and states, but each clock cycle can do many simultaneous operations. Sync'ed to the clock for correct delivery of multistate results to other circuits at the right time. So those familiar programming environments, which use clocks, are not bound to them the same way "assembly programming" is bound, or the other sequential languages built on it.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    5. Re:Not to mention... by AllergicToMilk · · Score: 1

      Don't kid yourself. At least one of the big two has published papers on applications of asynchronous design. In 1997 or 98 at ITSW, Marly Roncken of Intel presented on the testability of asychronous circuits related to cache logic. Clock-less logic turns out to be rather difficult to test, it turns out.

      --
      There are only 6,863,795,529 types of people in the world.
  19. Not only that but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If your clock pulses smear, slew and distort, then your data pulses do so as well. I agree that clock distribution can be a major pita but sending data along a long heavily loaded bus can be just as annoying.

    Two solutions present themselves: 1 - serial transmission is fast enough for most processes and really simplifies board design. 2 - change the architecture and run asynchronously.

  20. New Laptop by kc32 · · Score: 1

    Hey, now we can use this for our 600GHz 2TB laptop!

  21. Re:huh? slow news day? then I troll for fun and pr by Sensible+Clod · · Score: 1

    You mean where the sun doesn't shine?

    --

    The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
  22. It's all just waveguides by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Distributing your clock with photons imples you have a photon wave guide. If you are going to build a photon wave guide then why not build an electrical wave guide. Electrical wave guides, like for example coax cable, have wave velocities that are faster than light in glass, so they would logically be even better. And you dont' need any special materials like you would for optical wave guides.

    The problem might be that usually wave guides have to be the size of the wavelength to work right. ghz wavelength are larger than the chip. Thus you get forced towards the optical region by this considerarion.

    But you can beat this two ways.

    1) use negative index of refraction materials. Then the waveguide can be smaller than the wave length

    2) use near field waveguides with amplification. When the wavelength is a lot larger than the waveguide then the wave becomes evanscent (decaying). So it can't propagate very far. But hey, that's okay because the chip is not very wide either, so we can tolerate some loss of signal. And we could toss in some amplification to offset it.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:It's all just waveguides by Vireo · · Score: 3, Informative
      Electrical wave guides, like for example coax cable, have wave velocities that are faster than light in glass, so they would logically be even better.


      Err, actual wave speed never was a problem. Electromagnetic force already propagates at the speed of light in an electric conductor.

      It's the modulation speed (e.g. how fast you can vary the signal inside the channel) that is much higher in photonic devices. In conductors, losses are very high for rapidly varying signals, and as you said it, microwave guides are much too large for chips. Evanescent fields are also a problem since they can spread very far from small guides.

      This is even true when you light: for example, a standard coupler ("Y") for visible or IR wavelengths must normally be several centimeters long. However, so-called photonic-bandgap devices are solving this problem.
    2. Re:It's all just waveguides by sribe · · Score: 1

      Err, actual wave speed never was a problem. Electromagnetic force already propagates at the speed of light in an electric conductor.

      No, it doesn't. I'll assume when you say "speed of light" you intend the common shorthand for "speed of light in a vacuum". A signal in an electrical conductor propagates at a substantial fraction of "the speed of light", somewhere in the 40%-60% range IIRC. And even light itself travels more slowly than "the speed of light" through any medium other than a vacuum, I think about 80% in glass fiber.

      Please do us all a favor and avoid debating the subject of physics until you actually learn basic physics. And even more so, those of you who don't know physics please refrain from modding comments re physics "informative", lest you continue to mod up factually incorrect posts.

    3. Re:It's all just waveguides by Vireo · · Score: 1

      So you first assume I meant speed of ligth in vacuum, and then infer from that that I know shit about physics and bitch about how I'm moderated. The problem is, as this is Slashdot and not an engineering department, I tought is wasn't necessary to write a white paper on transmission lines and waveguides as an introduction.

      For the record, the whole point of my post was that the speed of light (be it in the vacuum or in a dielectric medium, or the propagation speed inside a waveguide) never was the limiting factor for communication bandwidth. It may cause delay problems on large distances (which isn't related), but I doubt that chipmakers are bitching about the slowness of c (then again I'll admit I know nothing about chip design). Switching (modulation) speed is what we're talking about and that's where photonics shine (bad pun accidental).

      And as for the speed of light inside glass fiber, it may be much slower than 0.8 c as refraction indices can be quite high, and even slower again if you're talking about a specific waveguide mode and not a straight path in a glass slab.

    4. Re:It's all just waveguides by sribe · · Score: 1

      It may cause delay problems on large distances (which isn't related), but I doubt that chipmakers are bitching about the slowness of c (then again I'll admit I know nothing about chip design).

      So, what do we have so far:

      1. You make a factually incorrect statement about physics (electrical signals propagate through conductors at the speed of light) and a factually incorrect statement about chip design (that propagation speed of clock signals is not a problem).

      2. I call you on the physics error only because I thought it was far more blatant.

      3. You write an entire response in which you never address your fundamental physics error, repeat your chip design error, and admit that you know nothing about chip design.

        Excuse me, but how exactly is this supposed to make you look smart? Here's a little exercise, since you claim to understand this stuff, estimate the distance over which an electrical signal will propagate through a silicon semiconductor in .0000000005 seconds--I think you'll be surprised. You see, the speed of light matters not only over huge scales of distance, but also over tiny scales of time. In fact the propagation delay of the clock signal (google "clock skew") is a major design problem with modern integrated circuits, and has been for a number of years now.

        And yes, your post was most certainly modded incorrectly readers who didn't have a clue about the subject matter but were dazzled by your use of technical terms.

  23. Uh, by autopr0n · · Score: 4, Informative

    Transistors don't need clocks, logic gates don't need clocks, but flip-flops do. The reason you need a clock is because the outputs of a bit of logic will be 'unstable' for a while the result is computed. The clock tells the next piece of the system when to read. In place of that, you'd need a 'done' signal, which would rase transistor counts quite a bit. Not to mention it would be very hard to find people who would know how to design these things. I think the future of the CPU involves different parts of the system operating on separate clocks, transferring data via a 'networking' type system. Computers connected via Ethernet don't need to have their clocks synched in order to work. Think of a simple instruction decoder. The decoder reads the instructions, and opens the right 'gates' in the CPU so that there is an electrical connection between the two registers and the ALU, and inside the ALU to the adder or subtractor, or whatever depending on what instruction you're trying to run. Then, the clock signals and tells the ALU that the registers are ready. Without the clock, the ALU might try to add the wrong things. (the ALU doesn't need a clock to work) In the future you could have some sort of system where the decoder just sends a message to the ALU telling it to setup the adder, and to the registry file to access these two registers. Then the register file will send the data to the ALU whenever it's ready.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:Uh, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It's been done. Honeywell 6180 from the 1970s. It used these "done" signals at every stage of the processor. There are people out there who can design and build these kinds of systems. Sure, there are more transistor counts, but, we seem to have no problem squeezing more and more transistors onto a chip...

    2. Re:Uh, by snotclot · · Score: 1, Interesting

      dude i didn't know the autopr0n guy knew some EE. props to you. thought you were high-level cs guy. btw, whatever happened to your server.

    3. Re:Uh, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is possible to design complex digital systems without central clocks. You obviously know little of digital design beyond that which is taught in an level 100 University course.

      If you don't believe me then check out this page at DARPA on the subject:

      http://www.darpa.mil/mto/clockless/

      Hmm...maybe those DARPA folks didn't realize that all of their flip flops have a clock input on them!

  24. Photonic logic could work.....but by postbigbang · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Consider the semiconductor. The way we work today is based on binary elemental logic-- on, off, unknown/neutral. Your basic light switch (SPST) is your basic computer, but it can't count too well.

    The evolved state of computing uses Boolean logic to mosh states together into integer algebraic, then other kinds of math transformations.

    Now, consider what light does, and how it flows. Light (actually this segment of the electromagnetic spectra) has different frequencies, at about the same data rate depending on media. No information there, except frequency differences and blendings of frequencies... lambda moshing.

    You can modulate light, like any other electromagnetic phenomena. You can modulate information, therefore, onto light. It's done all the time. By adding information, you can blend things together, then demodulate them to see what happened as the change in information. This modulation mimics how ALUs/accumulators/CPUs work with logic states in some ways, but now we have to multiply the effect to get to significant digits and significant logic handling-- math by light modulation and the devices that can do that. But not densely, so far, in the calculative/logic-state change tracking sense.

    What of these devices-- aye, thar's the rub. Is there an advantage to using light to do math? Not yet, really. It doesn't meet the state change efficiency model. One day, it might. Today, we lack the ability to make things dense enough. That's why photonic logic may fall short of expectations.

    --
    ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
  25. No credible competition? by nuntius · · Score: 3, Informative

    Not a credible player.

    Back in the day, "real" computer manufacturers scoffed at Intel. IBM would only let them produce the chips for the PC after Intel found another manufacturer willing to produce the part in case Intel tanked. The PC was nothing to boast about compared to the mainframes of the day.

    Slowly but surely, Intel grew to become the monster they are today. The turning point was somewhere near the Pentium II, when Intel machines were beginning to be used as engineering workstations. Profits truly are the source of competition and progress. Back then, the PC market was small, and improvements came quickly only because things were relatively simple. Now, everyone wants a piece of a growing pie, and companies are innovating as fast as possible.

    1. Re:No credible competition? by norton_I · · Score: 1

      At that time, nobody would buy any chips from anyone (Intel, TI, National, etc.) without a second source. It wasn't just in case the manufacturer tanked, it helped if they couldn't meet production quotas or had a fab go non-operational for a long time of course, either of these happening too much would cause you to tank, but while the high density IC market was starting off, manufacturing problems were the norm.

  26. Obligatory Star Trek dialogue... by Dark+Coder · · Score: 2, Funny

    LaForge: Gee, I don't know... These RocketIO bus are mighty archiac and PCI even more so.

    Data: RocketIO is rated at 9.8 Gbps and PCI-X6 is rated at even slower rate of 8 Gbps aggregated.

    LaForge: Yeah, right. Nothing compare to our photonic bus of 980 THz over each of the 2^1024 channels.

    Scotty: Ayie! Why don't they get with the program, laddies? I kin nev'r understind them, bloody buses.

    1. Re:Obligatory Star Trek dialogue... by hunterx11 · · Score: 1
      Data: There seems to be an error in the bus.

      LaForge: Let's try reversing the polarity.

      --
      English is easier said than done.
    2. Re:Obligatory Star Trek dialogue... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Data: Indeed, Geordie. And if that fails, we can always try a verteron pulse.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  27. And the sixth day... by greasy_ass_fart · · Score: 0

    God said: let there be a Photonic Processor. And he saw it was good.

  28. Re:All this Technical Mumbo-Jumbo by deimtee · · Score: 1

    You forgot to say that if you reverse the field polarity you can use the resultant raleigh scattering to produce uncrackable encryption via p-shell electron quantum transfers in the neutronium-alloy conduction band.

    --
    I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
  29. The Almighty Buck? by Call+Me+Black+Cloud · · Score: 2, Funny


    The "almighty buck" won't shuffle it aside...people will. If the processor is not cost-effective then it won't catch on. However, the processor may become the SUV of chips. It may not be the most cost-effective solution but a purchaser may feel it helps him compensate for his undersized penis.

    You know, when I started writing this post that's honestly not where I was going. I was going to make some point about how marketing may overcome the possible lack of value of the chip (a la VHS vs Beta) but then the post just headed south...

  30. Photonic Clock by half_d · · Score: 4, Funny
    Photonic clocking not only solves the limitations of electronic clocking, but also reduces jitter, skew, delay, crosstalk and power consumption while maintaining clock signal integrity for longer distances
    So if I get one of these photonic alarm clocks, will it make me not feel so terribly jittery and skew in the morning? (Don't even get me started on the delay)
  31. More realistic than you think. by Mustang+Matt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It might not be compensation, instead it might be the benefit of the power savings if it's significant enough. If this would double the uptime of a battery powered notebook it might be worth it even if it costs more.

    --
    The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
    1. Re:More realistic than you think. by Call+Me+Black+Cloud · · Score: 1

      Right, then the chip would have value...something worth the premium cost the chip demands. If there aren't enough benefits to overcome the cost, well, then you're in that area where you have one just to have one.

  32. oscilating nanomagnets... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    These look cool, they're supposed to oscillate to the several 10's of gigahertz.
    http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/9/9/9/1

  33. Design by SilverspurG · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A processor, greatly simplified, is a collection of logic gates. These logic gates, greatly simplified, are nothing more than modulators. In hardware design, the modulation of the electrical signal indicates the result of the logical function of the circuit. Electrical impulses are measured in cycles/second.

    Photons can achieve frequencies in vast excess of current processor speeds. The function of a photonic logic gate would be measured by simple amplitude modulation. A photon has a frequency and an amplitude. Using a photon with the energy of a gamma ray would be _FAST_, have negligable heat loss due to the friction which plagues electronic processors, and the amplitude of the photon could be easily modulated by passing through different materials. Different materials of different refractive indeces and transparencies (see fiberoptics) would be the photonic equivalent of electronic resistors and capacitors.

    I can only wait for the development of photonic processors. :)

    --
    fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
  34. At first... by Hangin10 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I thought the article said "platonic" clocking... I was thinking... I would hope they loved their clock..

    Note to self: Don't read Slashdot too late at night..

    1. Re:At first... by SeekerDarksteel · · Score: 0

      You think that's bad, I read the article and for 5 minutes was sitting here thinking "WTF is phonetic clocking? How would sound be better than electricity?!"

      --
      The laws of probability forbid it!
  35. Re:All this Technical Mumbo-Jumbo by znu · · Score: 1

    That's a pretty big error margin. 0.000000386 parsecs is around 7.4 million miles.

    This is why you should never use real units in technobabble.

    --
    This space unintentionally left unblank.
  36. the headline (talking chips) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Physicists in the US have shown that two nano-scale magnets can be made to oscillate in phase when they are positioned close to one another. The phenomenon, which is similar to the way two pendulum clocks mounted on the same wall become synchronized via the weak coupling of acoustic signals, produces a stable microwave output. It could therefore replace bulky and expensive components which operate on the same "phase-locking" principle in devices such as portable phones and radar systems. The magnets may also serve as tiny receivers that would enable microchips to communicate with each other without being in contact, dramatically increasing the processing power of computers (Nature 437 389 & 393).

  37. It will be available when people can buy it. by Darwin_Frog · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No, really. As soon as it gets anywhere near a point where there's a large-enough market for it, it'll be sold. Witness the present collection of chips - do you *really think that the majority of people using computers need a P4 at >3 GHz? No, they don't. The minute the niche market of gamers (and, yes, it'll be gamers) who can afford it is large enough, it'll hit the market.

    1. Re:It will be available when people can buy it. by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      I have a dual 2.7 ghz system with 2 gigs of ram and an excellent video card, but my system still gets over taxed (and i don't game).

      Until new architectures cease to offer even slightly significant increases to performance and response time, I will continue to buy new systems with more power every couple years.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    2. Re:It will be available when people can buy it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you have a mac this is not unusual.

  38. Re:Uh, Yes They Do by nathanh · · Score: 3, Informative
    Computers connected via Ethernet don't need to have their clocks synched in order to work.

    Ethernet does rely on synchronised clocks. You might be misstating that Ethernet doesn't have a clock line, meaning there is no dedicated wire with a clock signal on it.

    There is a high-precision clock on every Ethernet card. An Ethernet frame has a 64-bit preamble with Manchester encoding. That preamble adjusts the skew of the receiver clock so that it's synchronised with the transmitter clock. If the synchronisation didn't occur, you wouldn't know when to latch the data on the line and you couldn't receive a frame. The synchronisation occurs on every Ethernet frame and the precision of the clock must be high enough that the synchronisation lasts for the length of a frame.

    Async architectures will likely use a similar technique. The subsystems won't be driven by a system-wide clock line, as in the existing synchronous architectures, but the various clocks in subsystems will certainly be synchronised.

  39. Re:All this Technical Mumbo-Jumbo by Rei · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I find it amusing that you are picking one part of a piece of technobabble, and ignoring the rest. If you were going to correct the technobabble:

      * Neutronium may not even be physically possible, and certainly would be instantly highly explosive in Earth-conditions. It certainly wouldn't "alloy", and has nothing to do with the theoretical Dirac Sea.

      * Zero-point energy is not related to processors

      * You can "channel" photons, but not a "photonic current", which is at best a term to describe the amount of current that can be produced by receiving a stream of electromagnetic radiation.

      * What would "plasma conduits" have to do with either light or current?

      * There is no such thing as a "phase conducer"

    The thing that makes technobabble amusing is that it's *wrong*. It's pseudoscientific. It's fake. If something was theoretically possible, and terms were used correctly, it wouldn't be technobabble.

    --
    You look beautiful! Incidentally, my favorite artist is Picasso.
  40. What are you talking about!?!? by Dankling · · Score: 2, Funny
    Black hole clocking would be WAY more affordable. You get data processed before it's even fabricated! Think of the advantages in CS! Lastly, in the case that black holes let you go back in time, then we will already have black-hole processors!!

    AMD will also sue Intel now, in fear that the last part comes true.

    --
    Slash-for-Thought
  41. Screw Photonic Clocking by zrk · · Score: 3, Funny

    And move on to Photonic CANNONing. After all, the Borg are gonna hit is one of these days, and not just through Bill

  42. Re:All this Technical Mumbo-Jumbo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's only a large margin in your puny human mind.

  43. I disagree by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    I beg to difffer. if the modulation is terrible then its not a well terminated wave guide. period. a wire does not constitute a waveguide.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:I disagree by ScriptedReplay · · Score: 3, Informative

      erm ... a waveguide is a waveguide, no matter what kind of terminators you use. The pertinent condition is to support propagation modes.

  44. Re:Uh, Yes They Do by Eric604 · · Score: 1

    Yes and faster ethernet cards have faster clocks because according to relatively theory time slows down if you go faster. Thus, a fast card needs a faster clock to compensate for the slower time.

  45. Quantum First by illumina+us · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have a feeling that quantum computing will happen before photonic computing. That's just me though...

    --
    -illumina+us "I put on my robe and wizard hat..."
  46. light based processors could do decimal math? by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

    if i'm reading this properly light based circuits could be decimal based, which may be an advantage if it's possible. with decimal based architecture: 1 - less hardware can store higher values (greater capacity per memory cell). 2 - comp sci will be MUCH easier and more intuitive =) 3 - you could have the processors/circuitry operating on the visible spectrum, offering the most awesome looking case mods imaginable! YARR!

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    1. Re:light based processors could do decimal math? by arodland · · Score: 1

      1) No, you're not reading it right. There was no literal use of "digits" meant; the stuff about "significant digits" had to do with quantifying amounts of information.
      2) Your other points are wrong, wrong, and incredibly silly, in order. Working with decimal would be an order of magnitude harder than binary, not easier. It's been tried, a long time ago ;) Ternary, on the other hand, might still have some hope.

    2. Re:light based processors could do decimal math? by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      I understood what you were talking about with significant digits.. I remember those architecture lectures.. but i was musing in a slightly different direction. "Working with decimal would be an order of magnitude harder than binary, not easier. " never said it would be easier.. i was musing that it might be more efficient. I'd also like to say that flying was tried a long long time before the wright flyer took to the sky... the analytical engine designs by babbage were a century ahead of time.. who says decimal based computing could not potentially be more efficient now or soon than binary? consider the fact that clock speeds have advanced incredibly since it was last tried.. as have hardware costs decreased. Also consider that the engineering of the efficiency behind CPU's is incredibly hard and complex... (examples regarding kludges that just seem to work, but are completely counterintuitive). and that is already heavily abstracted by the time you get to the lowest level programming. I'm thinking such a system would shift burdons in the same direction.. possibly adding another firm level of abstraction. then again this is all musing. all of it.. and right now the conventional wisdom wins out, but it'd be interesting to take a thorough look into though.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    3. Re:light based processors could do decimal math? by DoubleReed · · Score: 1

      This is done all the time. You muse correctly, it is done as an abstraction ontop of binary. Google for "BCD" (binary coded decimal).

    4. Re:light based processors could do decimal math? by Bloater · · Score: 1
      if i'm reading this properly light based circuits could be decimal based, which may be an advantage if it's possible. with decimal based architecture: 1 - less hardware can store higher values (greater capacity per memory cell). 2 - comp sci will be MUCH easier and more intuitive =) 3 - you could have the processors/circuitry operating on the visible spectrum, offering the most awesome looking case mods imaginable! YARR!
      Regarding these points in turn
      1. Base three is better (base e is ideal, but being a non-integer base makes it useless for a godawful lot of applications - not to mention remarkably difficult to implement :).
      2. No way, base 10 is the least intuitive when you start doing computation, base 2 makes much more sense.
      3. I'll take that one as a joke.
    5. Re:light based processors could do decimal math? by synaptik · · Score: 1
      You said:

      [I] never said it [decimal based architecture] would be easier.. i was musing that it might be more efficient.


      No, it wouldn't be more efficient, either. The most efficient base for numerical representation is e. You know, good ol' 2.718281828...

      The farther you get from this number, the less efficient your number system is. Since it's kind of hard to represent numbers in base e with anything other than an analog circuit, this means that base 3 is the best you can do. Not base 2, and certainly not base 10.

      Your other interlocutor (arodland) was very much on the mark when he suggested that "Ternary... might still have some hope." But, 'good enough' is often the enemy of 'best', and binary has been 'good enough' for quite a while now. Hence, we use bits instead of trits.

      Efficiency in a number base ('radix') R takes into account both the number of symbols required for each digit (R,) and the number of digits required to represent some number in that radix (or log_R(X), for large values of X.)

      R * log_R(X) has a minimum at e.

      Yawn...
      --
      HSJ$$*&#^!#+++ATH0
      NO CARRIER
  47. Re:huh? slow news day? then I troll for fun and pr by MegaFur · · Score: 1

    But we all know newer is always better, and we never, ever have problems with emerging technologies. Light is faster than electricity. Photon-folks are faster (therefore better) than copper commies!

    And let's not forget, movies are fundamentally made up of just two things, and one of those is light.

    (may as well turn it into a proper holy war)
    When the glorious Flying Spaghetti Monster created all things out of a plate of linguini, I'm sure one of His first creations was light probably.

    --
    Furry cows moo and decompress.
  48. Re:Uh, Yes They Do by ZenShadow · · Score: 1

    Yaknow, I would mod you funny, but I think you're serious, and that scares me.

    Hint: Relativity has nothing to do with why faster ethernet cards might use a faster clock. Think "Frequency" instead.

    --S

    --
    -- sigs cause cancer.
  49. 100GHz clock signal??? by nothingx · · Score: 1

    Let's see here... 100Ghz or 100,000,000,000 c/s at the speed of light 299,792,458 m/s ... gives us about 3cm the signal can travel without breaking the laws of physics.

    Hope they've figured out how to make things really really small also.

    1. Re:100GHz clock signal??? by geeraard · · Score: 1

      Yes ! Really small things in photonics are being researched. However, as your structure size will always be of the order of the wavelength, actual structures will never be so small as in 45nm CMOS and beyond. But anyway, it's the degree of functions per unit surface that counts, not how small your smallest structures are.

    2. Re:100GHz clock signal??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually there is no upper limits to the frequency as you claim other than the energy to get to the higher frequency and a mean to transmit/receive it.

      There is no requirement that you cannot have more 1 transition of the signal in transit. These transition are discret events in time. As long as the receiver can separate them out, it is okay.

      A long wave radio can pickup broadcasting from the other side of the Earth even though it is longer than the wave length.

  50. Re:huh? slow news day? then I troll for fun and pr by ZenShadow · · Score: 2, Funny

    And let's not forget, movies are fundamentally made up of just two things, and one of those is light.


    Judging by what's coming out of Hollywood lately, the other thing must be shit.

    --S
    --
    -- sigs cause cancer.
  51. Re:huh? slow news day? then I troll for fun and pr by MegaFur · · Score: 1

    lol. Actually I was thinking of "sound". (Yeah, I know the very first movies were silent, but that was a long time ago now.)

    Anyway, who cares about Hollywood? It's not like it's the only source for movies in the whole world.

    --
    Furry cows moo and decompress.
  52. Re:huh? slow news day? then I troll for fun and pr by ZenShadow · · Score: 1
    Anyway, who cares about Hollywood? It's not like it's the only source for movies in the whole world.

    True. There's always Kazaa, Napster, Bittorrent... :-)

    (I suppose I should run away now)

    --S
    --
    -- sigs cause cancer.
  53. Optical Computing: Myeh by birge · · Score: 1
    A photon has a frequency and an amplitude

    A photon has a wavefunction, that's it. Assuming the photon has a relatively sharp energy, you can then say it has a frequency (energy) and a phase. Amplitude is meaningless when speaking about a single photon.

    I can only wait for the development of photonic processors.

    You'll be waiting a long time, I think. People have been trying this foolhardy idea of optical computing for a long time, and the field is pretty much dead. The problem is that to get light to modulate other light, you still have to move electrons around. Photons don't interact directly with each other. So if you're moving electrons around, for one, you're back to the old problem of finding materials with fast state transitions.

    But most importantly, nonlinear optical effects with degerate wavelengths (where inputs and output are the same color) are by definition, at least third order effects (in terms of perturbation theory where light is the perturbation on a quantum system). In other words, they are weak effects, and take a rather large distance (relative to a wavelength of light) to switch. Thus, while people will brag about this modulation speed and that, what they don't tell you is that (a) the device is big (on the order of many microns) and therefore (b) the latency sucks. This means you can't compute with it since your answer takes longer to come out the other end then a transistor would've taken. Of course, nobody tells this to us poor people who venture unwittingly into the field of optics as freshly graduated students who don't know any better. Because of all of this, optics is great for communications (where you modulate a ton in series, but don't need to wait for the output to feed into a next computation step) but really pretty bad for computation. So, the originaly article is right about clocking being a good match for optics, but all the user comments about optical computing should be taken with a grain of salt, I'm afraid.

    1. Re:Optical Computing: Myeh by SilverspurG · · Score: 1
      A photon has a wavefunction, that's it.
      All particles have wavefunctions, even electrons. It's the derivation of the math for the particle-in-a-box which yields that wavefunction. I suppose you'll probably continue to argue until I pull "Quantum Chemistry and Molecular Spectroscopy" off the shelf and start quoting lines and lines from the derivation.
      Amplitude is meaningless when speaking about a single photon.
      This is about photonic computing, not quantum computing. Just as in fiberoptics we're not talking about single photons. We're talking about a signal based on the characteristics of a stream of photons. Just like electronic processors work with the signal of a stream of a electrons.
      --
      fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
    2. Re:Optical Computing: Myeh by Cochonou · · Score: 1

      You'll be waiting a long time, I think. People have been trying this foolhardy idea of optical computing for a long time, and the field is pretty much dead.

      The field isn't so much dead. What is "dead in the water" (at least for now, and as long as there is no further breaktrough) is the idea of building processors using photons the sale way as the current processors are using electrons.

      However, optical processing has other applications that could be put into good use. Computing Fourier transforms like Lenslet is doing could be such an example.

    3. Re:Optical Computing: Myeh by birge · · Score: 1

      It sounds like you just made a typo or something in talking about a single photon, when you meant photons. If so, my apologies.

    4. Re:Optical Computing: Myeh by birge · · Score: 1

      I agree with you. I should've been more explicit and stated that I was talking about general purpose digital computing with optics. Having said that, even the Fourier transform stuff that once looked so promising really doesn't look so good. How do you get the data in and out of the system? In the end, you need a spatial light modulator, and those are so damn slow that you can always compute a fourier transform faster on a DSP chip, despite the parallelism of light.

  54. Forget photonic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...I'm still waiting for my positronic computer!

    1. Re:Forget photonic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you preorder??
      man, you are such a loser

  55. mod parent down by DoubleReed · · Score: 1

    Sorry to parent, but people seem to be taking this seriously so I gotta point out that this is BS so hopefully noone takes this seriously...

    "Consider the semiconductor."
    Ok, here is the parent posts first fundamental misconception. Digital doesn't necessarily mean semiconductor. Say, for example CDs which encode digital data using light.

    "By adding information, you can blend things together, then demodulate them to see what happened as the change in information."
    that isn't how light works, the waves superpose ontop of each other, just like every other kind of wave...
    "This modulation mimics how ALUs/accumulators/CPUs work"
    No, no it doesn't.

    There is a difference between storing and transmitting information and actual computation. You need some kind of devices which emit light depending on light inputs implementing AND OR and NOT logic.

    Not helping is that this guy sounds like an idiot:
    WTF does "mosh" mean anyway?
    "integer algebraic"?
    "the electromagnetic spectra" (I guess theres more than one of the electromagnetic spectrum)
    "your basic light switch is your basic computer" see above, a SWITCH is one bit of memory -- computation means implementing AND OR or NOT, at a minimum.

    PLEASE PLEASE mod parent down.

    1. Re:mod parent down by SnowZero · · Score: 1

      No kidding... the GP looks like it was written by one of those random text generators.

    2. Re:mod parent down by postbigbang · · Score: 2, Informative

      >>Sorry to parent, but people seem to be taking this seriously so I gotta point out that this is BS so hopefully noone takes this seriously...

      Oh? Read on.

      >"Consider the semiconductor."
      >>Ok, here is the parent posts first fundamental misconception. Digital doesn't necessarily mean semiconductor. Say, for example CDs which encode digital data using light.

      No, you misconstrue it. Transistor logic is what's used to do state changes that amount to the various relationships that form what a CPU does. Go back to your basics. We need the equivalent of optical accumulators in dense forms to make photonic processors feasible.

      >"By adding information, you can blend things together, then demodulate them to see what happened as the change in information."
      >>that isn't how light works, the waves superpose ontop of each other, just like every other kind of wave...
      >"This modulation mimics how ALUs/accumulators/CPUs work"
      >>No, no it doesn't.

      Yes, it can. When you modulate, endowing information, and sum the modulations, you do the same thing as changing states in the lowly semiconductor when merged modulations are seen by an optical accumulator or reflective accumulator like your own eye. Yes, you've changed the information to create new states that accumulate information. Then it needs to be stored or moved on to be changed again to suit the calculative ends of the program.

      >>There is a difference between storing and transmitting information and actual computation. You need some kind of devices which emit light depending on light inputs implementing AND OR and NOT logic.

      Yes, we agree that to satisfy Boole's needs, this must be done.

      >>Not helping is that this guy sounds like an idiot:
      >>WTF does "mosh" mean anyway?

      Sum, integrate, push together to form a meta value. I can tell you've never had a good punk rock experience.

      >>"integer algebraic"?

      How much about processor theory do you understand? Is integer algebra via binary summation foreign to you? Perhaps you're not familiar with integer algebra as the root method to obtain the basics of microprocessors.

      >>"the electromagnetic spectra" (I guess theres more than one of the electromagnetic spectrum)

      I can see that you're on a tangent, here. Yes, there are all sorts of subsections of the spectrum. Consider these spectra as finite sections of frequency ranges. There is one total spectrum. But Ethernet, a baseband technology, starts at 0hz and goes to varying heights of frequency; it's not modulated onto another carrier.

      >>"your basic light switch is your basic computer" see above, a SWITCH is one bit of memory -- computation means implementing AND OR or NOT, at a minimum.

      An SPST switch is either zero, or one. It's the most elemental binary calculator there is. Run your program and the switch closes, or it doesn't-- it's a computer and you control the logic state. But because it has either state, it isn't a static value. You can add logic onto multiple switches in numerous ways. You can then build truth tables, and so on. This is how the first computational devices were built via binary logic accumulators.

      So, mod me down if you'd like. Moderation isn't the point-- photonic CPUs are the point. Building dense arrays of photonic sensors that can have state changes as a result of merging light sources (think loosely of colors, like red and yellow merging to orange, with orange as the new piece of information) can have future application. We can modulate light, change its frequency, make it do tricks by interrupting it in various modulations, then pushing them onto an observeration point to discern changes.

      The modulations and summations can be programmed. The result of these inputs are an output. That's what we do in computing--> have inputs, process them, and do something with the outputs, now on a grand scale with the evolution of microprocessor integration capabilities and the surrounding chipsets that make use of I/O.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
  56. Asynchronous Circuit Design by ScroogeMcDuck · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Few years ago, I read the book "Asynchronous Circuit Design" by Chris J. Myers, in which it is explained the basics for designing digital asych logic by using special techniques and gaining advantages in power consumption and systems speed and, to stay on topic, no clock to be propagated through the silicin at all.

    The real questions are:
    - why these tecniques never gained importance (the first studies are from S.Unger in 1969)?
    - what about the EDA industry?

    --
    -- See you, UncleScrooge
    1. Re:Asynchronous Circuit Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      - why these tecniques never gained importance (the first studies are from S.Unger in 1969)?

      They are very expensive to research in depth. Most companies will avoid that cost until clocked CPUs reach their limits, or there is intense competition for higher performance or lower power usage.

    2. Re:Asynchronous Circuit Design by joto · · Score: 1
      The real questions are:
      - why these tecniques never gained importance (the first studies are from S.Unger in 1969)?

      Probably because at all points through history the chip companies had other, cheaper techniques to get their next generation of chips out of the door, without getting down in costly research that had to make them redesign everything...

      - what about the EDA industry?

      Probably because they reasoned their customers went with the previous answer...

    3. Re:Asynchronous Circuit Design by video_newbie · · Score: 1
      Part of problem may be sheer complexity of Asynchronous State Machines (ASM). Basic function of a clock in any state machine is to limit the state transition space. For anything other than a rather simplistic systems (few states), run away state transitions occurs in ASM. Nature seems to have solved this problem with analog systems on a macro level. On a quantum level, what may possibly look like an ASM, is so bizarre (like tunnel diodes) that anything exists at all.

      At current level of understanding, this may be an intractable problem.

  57. gamma rays... by DoubleReed · · Score: 1

    Heh, those led computer cases are gonna be heavy

  58. Fedz'll stonewall this.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The threat is clear....

    Fast, large prime generation.

    'Unreadable', encrypted e-data.

    Why do you think we're still stuck with Intel CPUs that run under 4Ghz?

    In the USA....

    Fast computers are weapons.

    Encryption is a weapon.

    USA Crypto Export Homepage

    1. Re:Fedz'll stonewall this.... by Colourspace · · Score: 1

      Wheres my +5 Paranoid moderation point?

  59. yeah... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    will the almighty buck shuffle them aside because of cost?

    What a bullshit statement.

  60. 40 GHz clocking is already done regularly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently the author of the article is unaware that 40GHz clocking is already done on a regular basis.

    It's used in order to deliver 40 Gb/s data rates (OC-768) into Cisco's top-of-line core router.

    100GHz clock distribution is not that far away using conventional MMIC techniques.

  61. No No No by Fhqwhgadss · · Score: 0

    It's obviously a typo for photonic cockring

    --
    How does a 7-person democracy cut a pie? Into 4 pieces.
  62. I still disagree by goombah99 · · Score: 1

    But in the interests of discsussion: Okay let me rephrase my point using your termniology: a "wire" is a "waveguide" that supports too few modes or is too dispersive to support clean modulation. Furthermore if the impedance is varies quickly with frequency (or is otherwise dispersive) then the end termination will be essentially impossible to match. You will get ringing that will prevent clean modulation. Hence termination prevents clean modulation. In my experience it's really bad termination that leads to poor modulation in most cases. But that can simply arrise from dispersive or variable impedances. In otherwords from something that would not usefully be called a "waveguide" but might be called a "wire". ( I note that One way to look at dispersion is to think of it as distributed bad termination so really it's all "bad termination" if you want to look at it that way)

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  63. Re:All this Technical Mumbo-Jumbo by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

    Yes, I understand, but where does the verteron pulse generator come in? And, more importantly, are you using isolinear chips to control the photonic current?

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  64. OT: Re:Ooooo! by pipingguy · · Score: 1


    I hate to comment on this but feel compelled due to boredom. WTF is with these antique shows?

    I suspect that they edit the parts where the "evaluator" says, "this is just shit from your grandma's basement". And yet people apparently gobble this stuff up like wannabe lottery winners.
     
    Knowing current TV production tactics, it wouldn't surprise me that multiple takes are done to get the "perfect" reaction shot.

    FYI, the "reaction shot" is the 21st century's version of the laugh track.