Quantum Dots Will Make Flexible Displays

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Quantum Dots Will Make Flexible Displays

Posted by Unknown on Monday December 12, 2011 @03:30PM from the quantum-ice-cream-of-the-future dept.

judgecorp writes "Quantum dots are small semiconductors, whose properties are defined by their size and shape. British nanotechnology firm Nanoco has found they are ideal for displays, allowing the possibility of screens that can be rolled up — and which also use far less of the hazardous chemicals found in normal screens." In addition to being Cadmium free (a problem in the EU where the exemption for Cadmium in displays expires in 2014), they directly emit light using less power than traditional filtered color LCDs.

83 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Resolution by cyachallenge · 2011-12-12 15:35 · Score: 2

The tiny crystals, which are 100,000 times smaller than the width of a human hair
Think of what resolution sizes we can get with pixels in this scale.
1. Re:Resolution by interval1066 · 2011-12-12 15:39 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Think of the resolutions the human eye won't be able to distinguish; dots the size of percentage of a human hair to dots the size of potatoes, its all just a blur to our eyes. But hey, who am I to poop on progress on any scale?
  
  --
  Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
2. Re:Resolution by Khashishi · 2011-12-12 15:43 · Score: 0
  
  That would be awesome!
3. Re:Resolution by timeOday · 2011-12-12 15:45 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Might be great for a head-mounted display though, or augmented-reality contact lenses. Now that voice command is starting to catch on, the largest remaining hindrance to miniaturization is the display.
4. Re:Resolution by Khith · 2011-12-12 15:50 · Score: 1
  
  Think of what powerful and expensive hardware will be required to run a monitor set at native resolution with pixels in this scale.
5. Re:Resolution by Gaygirlie · 2011-12-12 16:23 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  or augmented-reality contact lenses
  The problem is transmitting the pixel data to the lenses wirelessly while also simultaneously feeding them power somehow: you can't really have wires going to your contact lenses. If that could be solved in a reasonable manner then sure, it would be great. I've been thinking to myself that it'd be neat to have some sort of a small plug behind your ear into which you can plug in a small audio cable, and then have the audio transmitted directly to your inner ear through cranial resonance. Now, combine that with augmented-reality contact lenses/glasses and you've got a really, really powerful system useful for things ranging from entertainment to industrial uses to military uses and even remotely-guided surgeries.
6. Re:Resolution by nschubach · 2011-12-12 16:30 · Score: 2
  
  I'm pretty sure contact lenses would not be something your eye can focus on. I'd be happy if it were wrong, but I think it's too close to be able to see anything but a blurry mess.
  
  --
  Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
7. Re:Resolution by ksd1337 · 2011-12-12 16:34 · Score: 1
  
  And at this point in time, we have no imaging technology that can even produce anything near that resolution.
8. Re:Resolution by Gaygirlie · 2011-12-12 16:35 · Score: 2
  
  They are at a fixed length from your eye, the distance doesn't vary. Thus to my understanding it should be possible to have the image appear sharp depending on where you look. And if the lenses could detect how close or far you're looking the image could obviously be adjusted accordingly, thereby making them work at any focus range. But as I said, that's how I understand it, I could be wrong, too.
9. Re:Resolution by nschubach · 2011-12-12 16:35 · Score: 1
  
  Sadly, they will still sell screens that are 1080p. I wished LCD manufacturers would get off their asses and make more affordable screens over 1080p. 1920x1200 is the best I've seen that's not ridiculously expensive and I bought one of those a few years ago.
  
  --
  Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
10. Re:Resolution by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-12 16:52 · Score: 0
  
  I'm pretty sure contact lenses would not be something your eye can focus on. I'd be happy if it were wrong, but I think it's too close to be able to see anything but a blurry mess.
  http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/onepercent/2011/11/electronic-contact-lens-displa.html
11. Re:Resolution by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-12 16:57 · Score: 0
  
  It only matters if the dot pixels would need to be individually addressable anyway.
  If you illuminate scads of them using the same conductor, you can make pixels pretty much any size you want.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_dot_display
12. Re:Resolution by timeOday · 2011-12-12 17:12 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  These guys recently pulled it off with wireless power transmission to an antenna that goes around the rim of the lens. Just one monochrome pixel though! And a visible wire to that pixel.
13. Re:Resolution by EdIII · 2011-12-12 17:29 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The answer is not contacts. Direct retinal contact only separated by a thin transparent film. Bypass everything else.
  Use the rest of the space in the eye for equipment. Processing, storage, CCD, power generation, etc. With a high enough resolution CCD (or equivalent) you create a cybernetic implant with incredible vision. Overlay any kind of visual information you want on to any surface you can see, or have it hover in front of you.
14. Re:Resolution by maxwell+demon · 2011-12-12 18:11 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  And if you see strange things, you don't know whether to go to the psychiatrist for hallucinations, or to tech support for someone hacking your augmented reality system.
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
15. Re:Resolution by Tapewolf · 2011-12-12 20:16 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Think of the resolutions the human eye won't be able to distinguish; dots the size of percentage of a human hair to dots the size of potatoes, its all just a blur to our eyes. But hey, who am I to poop on progress on any scale?
  What it would mean is that you could support multiple resolutions like on a CRT display. The fact that an LCD has to have a 'native resolution' at all is a nuisance for things like games. That and this thing should sidestep the horrible contrast problems LCD has.
16. Re:Resolution by jovius · 2011-12-12 20:39 · Score: 2
  
  Even though the eyes couldn't distinguish individual dots the adjacent dots could be used to create interesting color and other illusions - maybe depth?
17. Re:Resolution by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-12 21:14 · Score: 0
  
  Or, far more likely, augmented reality apps brought to you by Extenze, the Wow Bra, etc.
18. Re:Resolution by FairAndHateful · 2011-12-12 22:16 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  And if you see strange things, you don't know whether to go to the psychiatrist for hallucinations, or to tech support for someone hacking your augmented reality system.
  Oh, I got these contacts a while ago, but for some reason I keep seeing a purple ape that claims to be my "buddy". It's been very confusing, and driving has been really dicey.
19. Re:Resolution by TheDarkMaster · 2011-12-12 23:28 · Score: 1
  
  I think a simple goggles is better. Sunglasses with HUD, here I come!
  
  --
  Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
20. Re:Resolution by geekoid · 2011-12-13 05:02 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but there are other advantage. While it appear as blur, it would actually be a blur. That means you can have a lot o data.
  Basically making the 'enhance..Enhance!" aspect of CSI factual, instead of craptual.
  And of course, the is a tone of uses in scinece.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
21. Re:Resolution by somersault · 2011-12-13 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  I've been thinking to myself that it'd be neat to have some sort of a small plug behind your ear into which you can plug in a small audio cable, and then have the audio transmitted directly to your inner ear through cranial resonance
  If you have to plug in a cable anyway, why not just use headphones? They're a lot less traumatic. Okay so operations aren't that traumatic, I've had ops on both my ears under local anaesthetic, but still I wouldn't go in for such an operation unless it was going to make a big difference to my life.
  I'd only get aural implants if they were wireless. I'd probably be happy to go for direct cabling if it linked directly to the nervous system though. That could be hella fun, if you didn't die in the process of installation..
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
22. Re:Resolution by Gaygirlie · 2011-12-13 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  If you have to plug in a cable anyway, why not just use headphones? They're a lot less traumatic
  Mostly because it wouldn't block out other audio sources, plus the audio quality would be better. Of course wireless audio would be even better, but if it could be hacked into... well, imagine getting audio ads right into your skull without being able to block it out.
23. Re:Resolution by sjames · 2011-12-13 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  The light from the display on your desk enters your pupil in some definite configuration that results in an image on your retina after being focused by the lens in your eye. Duplicate that configuration of light with emitters on the surface of your eye and you duplicate the image of your monitor on your desk.
24. Re:Resolution by somersault · 2011-12-13 12:31 · Score: 1
  
  I would think noise cancelling headphones would cancel out a lot more noise - though your system could do noise cancellation too of course, but headphones already help to block a noise out simply by being in or over your ears, so I think they'd be an easier starting point.
  I actually thought maybe one the reasons you'd prefer a cable behind the ear rather than headphones was to leave your normal hearing at full capacity while you also listen to your music or whatever. Maybe I was imagining your idea wrong.
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
25. Re:Resolution by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 13:45 · Score: 0
  
  Seeing as monitor resolutions have been consistently FALLING as a function of physical size in the past 10yrs, I fail to see how this new tech will be used. Ever.
  I had a 17" CRT capable of 1600x1200 15yrs ago. 22" LCDs hit 1680x1050 only about 6yrs ago.
  Now we have 13" notebooks with the same res as a 4" phone (WXGA)
  A high end notebook 4yrs ago had 1680x1050 on 15", now 99% of anything up to 16" are 1368x768
26. Re:Resolution by Gaygirlie · 2011-12-13 15:55 · Score: 1
  
  That's what I said: "it wouldn't block out other audio sources", allowing you to hear everything around you normally, too. Atleast I could definitely see surgeons and other personnel working on highly risky and/or important stuff benefiting from that. You just read my comment wrong :)
27. Re:Resolution by somersault · 2011-12-13 22:23 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, yeah. I guess I should have just gone to bed instead of checking Slashdot at 12:30AM! From that point of view though, you could also have a microphone feeding real world sound into your headphones if you wanted to hear everything around you, or have hearing enhanced in some other way - perhaps selectively filtering out voices or traffic noise or that kind of thing.
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
Great... by Haxagon · 2011-12-12 15:37 · Score: 5, Funny

Now leaving my phone in the bathroom means someone will mistake it for toilet paper rather than returning it!
1. Re:Great... by TheInternetGuy · 2011-12-12 16:18 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I don't know, maybe you should choose a different wallpaper?
  
  --
  If my comment didn't sound as good in your head as it did in mine, then I guess we all know who's to blame
2. Re:Great... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-12 18:07 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I wish you Apple employees would stop visiting /.
Cadmium by wanzeo · 2011-12-12 15:38 · Score: 3, Interesting

First I've heard about Cadmium in LCDs. Anyone know more? The wikipedia article says it's usually inhaled, but it's pretty vague as to how it causes problems.
1. Re:Cadmium by NEDHead · 2011-12-12 16:05 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  The inhalation is a crucial step in the manufacture. A well trained technician can inhale, then spew forth in a finely detailed pattern to create the final image. One of the most exalted practitioners was able to create not only images of Christ, but also Mary, and Colonel Sanders.
2. Re:Cadmium by artor3 · 2011-12-12 16:05 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I think some reporter got confused. Cadmium hasn't seen much use in displays since the early 80s, because there are better, non-toxic materials that have been discovered since then. I think it's still used in a few applications, but nothing Joe Consumer is likely to buy. Where cadmium is often used is in quantum dots, which has thus far made quantum dots unusable for most consumer applications. That appears to be one of the innovations coming out of the research here... quantum dots that don't use cadmium (or other heavy metals), and are thus safe to use in the creation of the flexible display that everyone's wanted for a while.
3. Re:Cadmium by viperidaenz · 2011-12-12 16:13 · Score: 1
  
  The only think I can think of is white leds may have a zinc-cadmium-sulfied phosphor (blue led + yellow phosphor = white light)
4. Re:Cadmium by youn · 2011-12-12 16:21 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Yep, but not necessarily... I tried smoking Cadmium once... but I did not inhale :p.... or was it really cadmium... hum, who knows :-)
  
  --
  Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that :p
5. Re:Cadmium by Dahamma · 2011-12-12 16:48 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Yeah, the reporter (and then the submitter) somehow interpreted the company's press release about a cadmium free QD-LED display to mean normal LCD displays contained cadmium. And then to make it worse the submitter tried to expand on this misinformation by quoting one exemption for a single company's special purpose LED and wrongly applying that to a whole industry and regulatory body. Sigh.
You insensitive clod! by PPH · 2011-12-12 15:51 · Score: 2

I've got trouble enough reading things on little iPhone and netbook displays. And now you want me to try to read off of a quantum dot?!!

--
Have gnu, will travel.
article or advertisement? by Goldsmith · 2011-12-12 15:52 · Score: 1

Is this an article or an ad for this company? I hope Slashdot made some money on this one, because there's nothing to this story other than the company name.
1. Re:article or advertisement? by delinear · 2011-12-13 01:01 · Score: 2
  
  Plus, I've read stories about screens with amazing resolutions you can roll up like paper at least every three or four months for the past decade. At this point, stop telling us it's possible and actually focus on getting one to market; it's starting to sound awfully like vapourware.
Ideal display by phantomfive · 2011-12-12 16:15 · Score: 1

Someday I hope we can create a display that emits light of any wavelength (or combination of wavelengths).

Then we can finally have a display that can show any color, instead of the color-poor monitors we have today. It makes me sad sometimes.....65 million shades of color, more than the eye can distinguish, and yet we can't get a proper shade of orange.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
1. Re:Ideal display by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 07:11 · Score: 0
  
  Someday I hope we can create a display that emits light of any wavelength (or combination of wavelengths).
  That's what quantum dots do. Each dot will produce only one wavelength, but they can be tailored for whatever wavelength you want.
  This isn't necessary, though, because the cone receptors in your eye only respond in fairly narrow ranges around the primary colors - red, green, and blue. Quantum dots are small enough that you can cover those ranges well within a single pixel. Blue is currently a bit limited by QD-LED manufacturing techniques.
SlashQuantumDot NG interface, gonna be awesomeeee by youn · 2011-12-12 16:16 · Score: 0

slashdot version 432442, optimized for quantum dot displays, hello web 5.0

--
Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that :p
Why compare to LCDs? by thegarbz · 2011-12-12 16:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

We have a potential replacement for LCDs in the works already, and its far more advanced along the R&D chain.
How do these displays compare to OLED which can also be rolled and are also less toxic in their production?
1. Re:Why compare to LCDs? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-12 18:01 · Score: 0
  
  They consume less power, because light does not need to pass through a color filter (the dots radiate the color themselves). Some say they will consume 1/4 of the power of current displays.
2. Re:Why compare to LCDs? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-12 18:33 · Score: 1
  
  They consume less power, because light does not need to pass through a color filter (the dots radiate the color themselves). Some say they will consume 1/4 of the power of current displays.
  Try again. OLEDs consume less power than LCD because light does not need to pass through a color filter (OLEDs radiate the color themselves). Some say they will consume 1/4 of the power of current displays...
  So why do we need quantum dot displays again?
3. Re:Why compare to LCDs? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-12 20:32 · Score: 0
  
  Among other things, we need them because another attractive part of the quantum dots is that their frequency spectrum is much more tuneable than LED's. Finally accurate colors for the masses.
  Plus I imagine that this will solve the color life length disparity problem that plagues OLEDs, thoguh I don't really know about the materials, I'm from the imaging engineering side.
4. Re:Why compare to LCDs? by Dr_Barnowl · 2011-12-12 22:37 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Because they are still working on making stable chemistry for OLED? The clue is in the name - O means organic. Organic molecules decay. The colours on OLED screens therefore fade with time and with UV light.
  They can also consume MORE power than LCD under certain circumstances - the light doesn't need to pass through a filter, true, and they are much more efficient at displaying a mostly black screen (because the OLEDs just switch off while the LCD still generates all that backlight and then blocks it), but in a predominantly white picture, such as is common in computer applications, they can consume more power than the LCD does. I guess that lots of little LED elements are less efficient than a few big ones.
  Quantum dots are teensy little aggregations of inorganic chemicals, so they shouldn't suffer from the same decay problems as OLED.
5. Re:Why compare to LCDs? by theskipper · 2011-12-13 02:31 · Score: 2
  
  The 50% lifetime degradation for red and green is in the hundreds of thousands of hours for PHOLED. It's in the tens of thousands of hours for 95%, far longer than the usable life of actual products on the market:
  http://www.universaldisplay.com/default.asp?contentID=604
  "Sky blue" PHOLED has a sufficient lifetime but dark blue is a long way off. So fluorescent blue is used which is lower efficiency but compensates by having a much higher lifetime. This is the set of chemicals currently being used in all Samsung OLED displays currently on the market (almost all of their phones; TVs and tablets next year).
  The larger issue has been encapsulation which is solved for rigid displays. For flexible displays, it's essentially solved.
  I realize you probably know all this but your post made it sound like there are still problems with PHOLED lifetimes. So this is a synopsis for those readers unfamiliar with the technology.
6. Re:Why compare to LCDs? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 03:54 · Score: 0
  
  > O means organic. Organic molecules decay.
  If I read nothing on Slashdot stupider than this today, I'll be happy.
7. Re:Why compare to LCDs? by JimFive · 2011-12-14 01:49 · Score: 1
  
  The 50% lifetime degradation for red and green is in the hundreds of thousands of hours for PHOLED. It's in the tens of thousands of hours for 95%, far longer than the usable life of actual products on the market:
  There are ~9000 hours in a year, so tens of thousands of hours is a few years. That is not "far longer than the usable life..." I still use a flat CRT that I bought in 1993 so even the 50% degradation may not be within the usable life.
  --
  JimFive
  
  --
  Please stop using the word theory when you mean hypothesis.
8. Re:Why compare to LCDs? by theskipper · 2011-12-14 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  Not sure I understand what you're saying. One thing you may have missed is the footnote in the material lifetime table. Since they're material specs, those figures do not factor any outcoupling efficiency gains for the emitter structure. Also the drive currents are worst case (constant illumination). Both factors greatly suppress EQE (but still 100% IQE for AMOLED). So with sufficient encapsulation, the usable lifetime is definitely far longer than device lifetime. HTH.
ANOTHER flexible display? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-12 16:38 · Score: 0

Ok, maybe I'm jaded or just overly pessimistic, but flexible displays seem to be overrated in my experience. For all the new "technologies" that PROMISED flexible displays I have yet to see a truly viable flexible display on the market. WHY you may ask? Simply because the production of said flexible-display compared to the cost of a rigid display have enough of an disparancy that very few of today's profit-run companies would agree to such an experiment. Even if "Quantum Dots" ARE viable enough to apply to a cost-effective flexible-display appointment, would the benefit of consumer enthusiasim overcome the discrepancy in cost comparisons?
Okay, a flexible-display E-reader MIGHT be viable, but anything else with a flexible display? Perhaps a laptop with a roll-out display, but will people be as enthusiastic when they realize it needs some sort of rigid stand to keep the screen rigid? Probably not!
The only benefit I can see is something close to a smartphone with a rollout display as tall as the width of the phone itself. So take an average (somewhat oversized) 5 inch long smartphone. It MIGHT be viable to produce a rollup display that can meet something akin to 8 by 5 after being deployed. At what cost? There would have to be some cable that attaches to that display, and a somewhat secure (rigid) way of securing that display. Does that mean the attachment point would be the size of (even) a micro USB port? That would mean the thickness of such a port would be at minimum an eigth of an inch! Roll up something an eigth of an inch thick enough times to meet a length of eight inches and you'll know what I mean.
1. Re:ANOTHER flexible display? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-12 17:24 · Score: 0
  
  Ok, maybe I'm jaded or just overly pessimistic, but flexible displays seem to be overrated in my experience.
  ...
  Okay, a flexible-display E-reader MIGHT be viable, but anything else with a flexible display
  Hell yes, this technology might FINALLY give me the kind of e-book I want: one that looks like a book and feels like a book, with a variable number of pages (say 50-500) that can all change their content! Full color, motion video, insane resolution - flip through it quickly without any stupid "page turning" animations... my god, it'll be beautiful! :)
2. Re:ANOTHER flexible display? by zippthorne · 2011-12-13 01:41 · Score: 1
  
  That was going to be the original plan. Before we realized that flash memory was going to be cheaper than the equivalent amount of "e-paper memory"....
  
  --
  Can you be Even More Awesome?!
3. Re:ANOTHER flexible display? by JimFive · 2011-12-14 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  I think it would be more useful for a presentation screen that doesn't need a projector. Pull down the screen, plug the computer into the display cable and you're there.
  --
  JimFive
  
  --
  Please stop using the word theory when you mean hypothesis.
Heard it before.... by Brad1138 · 2011-12-12 16:58 · Score: 2

"ideal for displays, allowing the possibility of screens that can be rolled up"

They said that 10 years ago with OLED technology, still waiting on that...

--
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
Interesting video on quantum dots (the Economist) by wonkavader · 2011-12-12 17:04 · Score: 1

This is not about making displays with quantum dots -- it's about color correcting LEDs, but still interesting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjznErmcLnU
Not sure how you go from what I see in the video to display tech.
yumm? by AgNO3 · 2011-12-12 17:04 · Score: 1

are Quantum dots as good as dippen dots? That would be awesome.

--
OMG Ponies!!! with Glitter!!!! I miss Pink :-(
1. Re:yumm? by Macrat · 2011-12-12 19:17 · Score: 1
  
  The ice cream of the future is tasty.
2. Re:yumm? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 06:42 · Score: 0
  
  The ice cream of the future filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.
All hype... by AlexEiffel · 2011-12-12 17:11 · Score: 4, Funny

I looked at a few pics, but they didn't look any better than the monitor I'm already using.
1. Re:All hype... by WSOGMM · 2011-12-12 20:16 · Score: 1
  
  But more importantly, were you able to SEE any pix?
2. Re:All hype... by Robert+Zenz · 2011-12-12 21:58 · Score: 1
  
  Of course! You just need to zoom in and everything gets pixelated!
3. Re:All hype... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-12 23:23 · Score: 0
  
  Did you try the roll-up feature?
Old news. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-12 20:17 · Score: 2, Interesting

Nanosys in Palo Alto (http://www.nanosysinc.com/) has been involved in designing quantum dots for display purposes for a while. The point isn't the size of the dots, but rather that one can tune the output wavelengths to match the filters on the front of LCD displays. This increases the efficiency measurably, vastly increasing the color gamut that can be displayed (3x more color according to their website). In my opinion, this is a REAL revolution in display technology!
I have no interest (beyond intellectual) or investments in Nanosys - just came across the product.
Quantum ? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-12 21:35 · Score: 2, Funny

So, is it basically uncertain what it will be displayed then ?
Only took 13 years by cyclomedia · 2011-12-12 23:28 · Score: 1

It's about time. I wrote my final year physics paper on this, using quantum dots tuned to the wavelengths of RGB for flat panel displays. In 1998.
Most fun part was that I did most of the work from my bedroom, running simulations on the unix system at uni via a C app and my trusty 33.6k modem. Good times.

--
If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
Re:Cadmium - Oblig by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-12 23:55 · Score: 0

Obligatory xkcd
http://xkcd.com/641/
There IS prior art by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 00:11 · Score: 0

http://www.dippindots.com/products/lines/originalDots.html
Related question for all the optics gurus... by SpazmodeusG · 2011-12-13 00:18 · Score: 2

In a hologram, tightly packed alternating dark and light regions produce constructive/destructive interference, causing a 3D effect. If the pixels can be made close enough is it possible to recreate this effect on a monitor?
If so there's an excuse to go beyond human perceptible detail.
Quantum by TheSkepticalOptimist · 2011-12-13 03:36 · Score: 1

The newest buzzword, joins the ranks of the "Cloud", "Nano", "iSomething", "Web 2.0", "eSomething" etc, as previously overused buzz words that do not really mean what they are supposed to mean. Everything is going "quantum" these days.

--
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
1. Re:Quantum by geekoid · 2011-12-13 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  That's been true for 2 decades. WHer have you been?
  *How does homeopathy work? "quantum!"
  *How does acupuncture work: "Quantum!"
  **How can there be ghosts? "Quantum!"
  How big was that leap? "Quantum!"***
  *It doesn't
  **There aren't.
  *** Ho boy.
  
  --
  The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
2. Re:Quantum by MrHanky · 2011-12-13 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  There's a fair amount of evidence that acupuncture works, at least for pain relief. It might of course simply be placebo (which is proven to work), but dismissing something out of hand due to lack of knowledge is idiocy.
3. Re:Quantum by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-14 06:46 · Score: 0
  
  There's a fair amount of evidence that acupuncture works, at least for pain relief.
  Yeah, but not for curing anything.
  Homeopaths and chiropractors and acupuncturists make all sorts of noise about "healing," but when they come across something they can't handle, they ignore it (to your health's detriment) or send you to the "real doctors."
Only five years off! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 04:18 · Score: 0

That was the only line missing from the article.
I'm sure... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 05:01 · Score: 0

The picture will be incredible. Until you look at it.
Re:Cadmium - Oblig by geekoid · 2011-12-13 05:12 · Score: 1

SMBC did it first.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
thanks by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-13 06:47 · Score: 0

thank u for this
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/12/13/038240/quantum-dots-will-make-flexible-displays
The real benefit by sjames · 2011-12-13 09:58 · Score: 1

The real benefit is flexible displays in current style tech so the screens won't shatter if you prove yourself human and drop your phone once in a while.