Slashdot Mirror


Major Breakthrough In Spintronics Research

Invisible Pink Unicorn writes "Spintronics is the field of research into developing devices that rely on electron spin rather than electron charge to carry information. A major advance has been made by the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL), where they have for the first time generated, modulated, and electrically detected a pure spin current in silicon. Progress in this field is expected to lead to devices which provide higher performance with lower power consumption and heat dissipation. Basic research efforts at NRL and elsewhere have shown that spin angular momentum, another fundamental property of the electron, can be used to store and process information in metal and semiconductor based devices. The article abstract is available from Applied Physics Letters."

27 of 106 comments (clear)

  1. i see what i did there. by User+956 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Spintronics is the field of research into developing devices that rely on electron spin rather than electron charge to carry information.

    Yes, I believe it's called a "Phonograph".

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
  2. I don't get it by Quadraginta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Now, the press release says the exciting thing about "spintronics" (ugh) is that " it frees one from the constraints of capacitive time constants and resistive voltage drops and heat buildup which accompany charge motion."

    Well, fair enough; I can readily imagine that if you could get information to flow through a magical material without having to actually make electrons move, that would be great. No more of that pesky knocking into the lattice that they do which converts their motion into heat.

    But...um...how exactly do you get a spin current without the electrons actually moving? I mean, given that the spins in question are nailed to the electron? Seems tricky. Like driving down the highway without having your car move...

    Furthermore, if we read further down the abstract, we find this:

    "NRL scientists first inject a spin polarized electrical current. . . .which generates a pure spin current flowing in the opposite direction. . ."

    Sounds to me like the existence of their spin current depends on the existence of an old-fashioned charge current. So how's this help? How is this a "key enabling advance" (as the press release calls it), still less a "major breakthrough" as the /. article excitedly and credulously calls it?

    1. Re:I don't get it by Tim+C · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "spintronics" (ugh)
      Obviously the reasoning there is "electronics = electron + ics, therefore spintronics = spin + tronics". Which of course means that it really ought to be simply "spinics", but that sounds even worse. It's the same sort of reasoning that brings us the non-word "blogosphere", modelled on the word "atmosphere" that is actually "atmo" + "sphere" - giving the non-word you're looking for as "blogsphere", not "blogosphere"...
    2. Re:I don't get it by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Quantum Teleportation. It's all the rage in Los Alamos.

      --
      The game.
    3. Re:I don't get it by silverpig · · Score: 5, Informative

      Spins are transferred from electron to electron as the spins flip. Imagine a series of bar magnets. You can flip one magnet and it will affect the energy of the next one, and then the next one etc. The exact solution is difficult to calculate quite often, but in general, if you have a high population of spin up electrons localized in one area, the spins will tend to diffuse away from that via a few mechanisms:

      1. The spin ups will turn to spin downs and cause nearby spin downs to turn spin up.
      2. The spin up electrons will move to the right (just picking a random direction), and this will be compensated for by having spin down move left. The result is a net spin current with no net charge current.

      To generate this, a spin polarized charge current is generally used. In this paper they used a ferromagnet contact as a source. The setup is basically a 3-way intersection.

      Lead 1 is just a floating lead not connected to any ground.
      Lead 2 is the ferromagnetic lead
      Lead 3 is a ground connection

      A voltage is applied between Lead 2 and Lead 3 causing an electrical current to flow. The electrons come out of the ferromagnet partially polarized. This current then goes into the ground Lead 3. All charge current flows from Lead 2 to Lead 3. However, the excess spin up electrons in the junction cause spins to diffuse down the floating Lead 1. No charge current flows down Lead 1 because it has nowhere to go. The result is a net spin current with no net charge current.

    4. Re:I don't get it by Quadraginta · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Er, I understand the derivation. I just think it's a silly word. How would one usefully distinguish what these folks are doing -- which as far as I can see just amounts to detecting an electric current in a funky magnetic way -- from working with polarized light, which is, forsooth, detecting the spin current carried by photons? Aren't they both "spintronics?"

      I don't see the problem with "blogosphere," by the way -- the extra "o" is just added to make it roll off the tongue easier, and there's plenty of precedent for adding unobtrusive vowels to make combining forms (e.g. prefixes) out of nouns. Hence, Greek "psyche" (soul) becomes "psycho" with an extra "o" when put in front of words that begin with consonants, like "logia" (study) to get "psychology." Latin "crypt" (vault, cavern, from earlier Greek usage meaning secret) adds an "o" to become "crypto" when it's used as a prefix, as in "cryptogram" or "cryptofascist."

    5. Re:I don't get it by Quadraginta · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Thanks very much! Wish the PR release and abstract had been more informative.

      What's the argument for there being potentially far less dissipative losses with pure spin currents, however? It's still going to interact with the lattice via spin-orbit and spin-spin coupling terms, no? You're still going to get resistive heating, no? Is it just the fact that the magnetic dipole interactions are much shorter range interactions than the Coulomb force? (Except wouldn't it be a screened Coulomb force in the lattice anyway?)

    6. Re:I don't get it by silverpig · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Spin-orbit can still be quite strong yes, but it is very dependant on the material. An interesting way to think about it is that when you have a standard piece of conducting material, it's not that there is no current flowing in it while it sits there not hooked up to a source; actually the electrons go all over the place inside the material. Current flows right to left, left to right, but it all balances out and there is no net current. Resistive heating only occurs when you have net charge current. In an ideal spintronics device you would have charged currents flowing just like in any other material, but there would be no NET charge current. The spin current can diffuse along your channel. Why is this better in terms of heat? I'd have to check, but I think you're on the right track with the magnetic dipole being much weaker than an electric monopole. 1/r^4 vs 1/r^2 IIRC. One of the major benefits occurs if you can pass a coherent spin current along a channel. This leads to the possibility of quantum computations involving spins.

    7. Re:I don't get it by counterfriction · · Score: 5, Informative

      All particles have an associated spin, just as all particles have an associated net charge.
      Spintronic devices make use of the spin of electrons. Whence, Spintronics.

      --
      Sig free's the way to be.
    8. Re:I don't get it by brarrr · · Score: 5, Informative

      well, it's 1am and i'm writing up my phd thesis draft in... spintronics... so i'll jump on this as best i can, having skimmed the article (but not the press release because really, what science comes from press releases)

      the idea for spintronic devices is to use different device physics utilizing the spin of charge carriers vs just their charge. a common device is a GMR read head on hard drives - developed in '88, widespread now. the next step is to make transistors that use spin - this requires a new class of materials (GMR is a metal/macro structure effect), essentially making non-magnetic materials ferromagnetic is the goal. (personally i use ZnO, not Si, but the idea is similar). if you use a ferromagnetic semiconductor of some kind, then there is better charge transfer to other semiconductors vs a ferro metal to semiconductor... and then what you're looking for is a material that has a long spin polarization lifetime (time before the knocking around flips the spin and all of a sudden you have no polarization). so i *think* that they mean a spin current to be something that is 100% spin polarized (ie all spin up) - which means that if aligned with an applied magnetic field there will be minimal scattering therefor lower resistivity and lower heat/phonon interaction. vs. the case of a partially polarized or random spin up/down distribution where the available states in a material subjected to a field are only open to half of the free carriers (ie only spin up states are available because of the field, so only spin up electrons are efficient carriers). all this is very much so like GMR heads, obviously (well i suppose to me).

      i've met the authors at conferences, and i'm sure they're less than thrilled with this being labeled a "major breakthrough" though i'm sure they like a bit of the attention. this is pretty cool and interesting stuff that they've done, but it isn't a breakthrough - just another piece of an extremely large and complex puzzle.

      --
      to email me: take my /. handle and append .net preceded by charter.
    9. Re:I don't get it by moogs · · Score: 2, Funny

      whoa, whoa, whoa, slow down here. Entanglement? Do we *really* want to open a portal to Xen? We all know what happened the last time that happened. I doubt there are enough MIT graduates with that caliber anymore... .357, wasn't it?

      --
      I have bad karma. What do I care what you think?
    10. Re:I don't get it by infolib · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The difference is that there's very little energy required to flip a spin. The energy losses (at least the unavoidable ones) in computation come from deleting information, for instance to delete a single bit signified by a bunch of electrons caught in some place you'd let them flow to the ground line. If the voltage difference was, say, 2V you'd lose 2 eV per electron. If the same electrons had the bit stored in their spins, the energy you'd lose could be orders of magnitude lower, quite possible milli- or microeV.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
    11. Re:I don't get it by zero_offset · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm having a hard time understanding what's silly about it. You have to call it SOMETHING. What do you suggest? Spinformation? Spin-o-matics? Magnetitronics? Electrospintronics?

      At some point you just give it a name and move on.

      Although I'd still like to give the person responsible for "blog" a kick in the nuts.

      --

      Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005

    12. Re:I don't get it by zero_offset · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The "major breakthrough" label was only used in the slashdot article... not exactly anything to get worked up about...

      --

      Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005

    13. Re:I don't get it by tgd · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm sorry, I'm going to have to ask you to leave. This is Slashdot and we don't take kindly to people who actually know what they're talking about around here...

    14. Re:I don't get it by zero_offset · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Spin" itself is essentially jargon. Why not break it down into, say, quantum point source angular momentum? You could apply that same process to most of quantum physics and thoroughly eliminate the possibility of getting anything done.

      If you throw out the phrase to somebody who doesn't know what it is, then sure, you probably should have explained better, or expect to be asked for an explanation. Spintronics is a convenience. Do you really think that a bunch of researchers, who presumably work on this daily, are going to keep repeating "spin polarization currents in conductors and semiconductors"?

      For that matter, do you really suppose your hypothetical grandfather would derive more useful information from the phrase "spin polarization currents in conductors and semiconductors" versus "spintronics"? At least "spintronics" would give him a fighting chance to make the connection with "electronics"...

      --

      Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005

  3. Re:Oh man by RuBLed · · Score: 3, Funny

    especially if he sees the new boolean\bit implementation

    On
    Off
    SpinNotFound

  4. Anyone want to simplify how this works? by Bones3D_mac · · Score: 2, Interesting

    For some reason, the term "spintronics" makes me think of it as though this was a long series of ball bearings in physical contact with the adjacent ones, and using the rotational force of the starting point to rotate each ball bearing in an opposite direction as the ones they're in physical contact with... eventually transferring the rotation to the end point.

    Is it simply a case that in spintronics that the electrons used to carry a current don't actually leave their respective atoms (as they do in AC and DC current), but are just being rotated faster/slower or alternating direction?

    --


    8==8 Bones 8==8
    1. Re:Anyone want to simplify how this works? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Spin is detected with quantum effects. See for example, the Giant magnetoresistance effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GMR_(physics)

  5. Silicon is the only news here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative
    The same has been achieved in GaAs some time ago: http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v3/n3/abs/nphys543.html, and the article at http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=APPLAB000091000007072513000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes (if you are subscribed) says:

    Electrical spin injection and detection have been demonstrated in all-metal devices [4,5] and ferromagnet/semiconductor based spin valves [6-8] having distinct coercivity difference between ferromagnetic spin injectors and detectors.
  6. Forgive me if I'm being obtuse, by nowhere.elysium · · Score: 2, Funny

    but I'm trying to figure out how this can be applied to our current electronic designs. If we use electron spin to store data, and presuming that we can determine which way it's spinning, then that gives us a total of six possibilities, right?
    +pitch -pitch +yaw -yaw +roll -roll
    Or, of course, this could be denoted as 0 and 1 instead of + and -. However, doesn't that throw out the current binary model? This'll effectively be base six, instead of base two, won't it?
    I dunno - this isn't exactly my field, so I'm just trying to understand, is all.

    --
    http://xkcd.com/313/
    1. Re:Forgive me if I'm being obtuse, by infolib · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, it's a quantum mechanical thing. Seeing spin as the electron spinning is a very intuitive picture, but also quite wrong. The real understanding of spin involves stuff like non-commuting operators that I won't go into here (and a quantum mechanics textbook will probably do it better) but the upshot is:

      A single spin 1/2 particle like an electron can be in two states. You can measure the spin along x, y or z direction as you wish, and the answer will always come out to either plus or minus hbar/2. (hbar is the reduced Planck's constant).

      It's with this spin like momentum and position: You can't know both at once. If you measure a certain spin along x, the spin in y and z directions will be in a Schrödinger's cat like state: Both + and - at once, but if you measure it you'll only see one. Of course you can choose an axis very close the original x, and you'll be very likely (but not sure) to measure the same general direction.

      In sum, the easy thing to do with a spin is to treat it like a single bit, just pic one direction and measure along that. (For computer operation you'd probably like using 10-10000 spins at once to limit the effects of noise, just like transistors aren't quite reliable using a single electron (yet)). If you're into the advanced stuff you can have the spin hold one qubit (google it) and do quantum computation, but the technology in this particular report is likely to stay on the classical side.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
  7. Re:IANAPP...B == I am not a particle physicist.. b by infolib · · Score: 4, Informative

    Well, I'm not a particle physicist either, but I did my master's thesis on this type of system(*) So, how close are they to applications?

    First of all, they've measured from 5K up to 80K which is about quarter of room temperature, practically there by solid state physics standards (see the Nature paper). Considering that the effect didn't dwindle by more than half in that range, that's a very good sign that it could be brought up to room temperature. The problem is in getting the electrons "lined up" enough. In the Nature paper they estimate that they see about 30% more spin up than down electrons, but for real applications you'd like to get a lot closer to "100% polarization". I guess that problem might be solvable, but it includes a lot of putting very thin layers of material on single crystal with quite extreme tolerances. Then again, chip fab tolerances are quite extreme already.

    In cases like this it's hard to figure out how well stuff will work without actually trying, and that's what this recent paper is about: They've built a transistor-like device with technology similar to that which would be used for mass production and measured a (tiny) effect. Now it's a matter of optimisation, and they might just get there, but it'll be years at least before it's time to start drafting the chip layout.

    (*) Hint: If it involves building huge accelerators to crash particles together at pseudo-Big-Bang conditions, it's particle physics. If it involves sticking little pieces of semiconductor into a magnet at 5 Kelvin it's solid state physics. Not that solid state physicists don't use particles, we're all over electrons, phonons, excitons, magnons and many other 'ons that ignorants dismiss as "quasi"particles. Hrmph!

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
  8. spintronics + Ph.D. = spindoctor? by erdraug · · Score: 2, Funny

    Is there ANY discipline that some slashdotter doesn't have a Ph.D. in?

  9. Vista's version by kooky45 · · Score: 2, Funny

    It looks like you're reading a quantum state. Do you wish to continue? Yes/No? No/Yes?

  10. Dizzy by ravensee · · Score: 4, Funny

    We must move forward, not backward. Upward, not forward. And always twirling, twirling, twirling.

  11. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion