Nano-Scale Terahertz Antenna May Make Tricorders Real

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Nano-Scale Terahertz Antenna May Make Tricorders Real

Posted by samzenpus on Monday January 23, 2012 @02:36AM from the welcome-to-the-future dept.

MrSeb writes "Researchers from Imperial College London and A*STAR in Singapore have shown off a terahertz antenna that's just 100 nanometers across — about 30,000 times smaller than existing terahertz antennae — and two orders of magnitude stronger than other T-ray beam-forming techniques. T-rays are a lot like EHF (extremely high frequency), which is used by millimeter wave scanners in airports, medical imaging, and emerging wireless networking standards like WiGig — but stronger, faster, and more detailed. Where EHF radiation can see through your clothes, T-rays can penetrate a few millimeters of skin. Furthermore, because atoms and molecules have a unique terahertz-range signature, T-ray scanners can detect toxic substances, bombs, drugs — or even cancerous tumors under your skin. Most importantly, though, due to the nano scale of these antennae, it's possible to create huge antennae arrays on a single silicon chip, meaning hand-held T-ray scanners are now a possibility. In the not so distant future, every household might have a Star Trek-like tricorder capable of detecting cancer or other diseases."

36 of 185 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Detecting Cancer....... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 02:40 · Score: 5, Funny

or giving it to us.
1. Re:Detecting Cancer....... by Moheeheeko · 2012-01-23 03:19 · Score: 2
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qBV4aAPVHk
2. Re:Detecting Cancer....... by Mitchell314 · 2012-01-23 03:24 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Given that Tetrahertz is mostly infrared (or visible towards the gigahertz magnitude), you'd be hard pressed to give anything cancer.
  
  --
  I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
3. Re:Detecting Cancer....... by Mitchell314 · 2012-01-23 04:01 · Score: 2
  
  Well, you'd be more crushed than cancerous if it was literal. Which makes sense if you are trying to crush cancer, figuratively speaking.
  
  --
  I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
4. Re:Detecting Cancer....... by root_42 · 2012-01-23 04:45 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Given that Tetrahertz is mostly infrared (or visible towards the gigahertz magnitude), you'd be hard pressed to give anything cancer.
  First, it's Terahertz, and second: no, not visible when it goes down to Gigahertz. Gigahertz waves are Microwaves, and hence far from being visible. Terahertz waves are in order of 1mm or smaller, approaching the infrared. Safety limits for radiation exposure of Terahertz waves are still being researched upon, though.
  
  --
  [--- PGP key and more on http://www.root42.de ---]
Change last sentence by Exitar · 2012-01-23 02:40 · Score: 3, Funny

into "In the not so distant future, every household might have a Star Trek-like tricorder capable of giving you cancer or other diseases."
1. Re:Change last sentence by radtea · 2012-01-23 03:23 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  "In the not so distant future, every household might have a Star Trek-like tricorder capable of giving you cancer or other diseases."
  That's the misinformation the medical establishment would like promulgated, so thanks for getting a jump on it.
  It's really important that technology like this be seen as "potentially dangerous" so it's use can be restricted to highly paid professionals whose business model requires such legal limitations "for your own safety."
  There is exactly zero evidence, for example, that diagnostic ultrasound carries any risks, but there are still limitations on its use (you can buy your own unit but can't use it on people unless you're a trained, insured, highly paid professional.)
  
  --
  Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
2. Re:Change last sentence by amRadioHed · 2012-01-23 04:21 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  There is exactly zero evidence, for example, that diagnostic ultrasound carries any risks, but there are still limitations on its use (you can buy your own unit but can't use it on people unless you're a trained, insured, highly paid professional.)
  The risk of some untrained people using diagnostic ultrasound is that they may tell someone with cancer that they don't see anything to worry about.
  
  --
  We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
3. Re:Change last sentence by squizzar · 2012-01-23 04:24 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Surely some of that protectionism is in the public interest, since those trained, insured, professionals actually know what they are looking at (and when they get it wrong they have liability insurance). Look at all the wonky alternative medicine that's already out there and tell me you want to create an industry of people with legitimate diagnostic equipment that don't know how to correctly gather or interpret the results from those machines and then using them to diagnose people with all manner of nasty things that they probably don't have.
Every household? by singingjim1 · 2012-01-23 02:43 · Score: 2

Awesome! It'll be my next purchase right after I get my flying car!
1. Re:Every household? by DigiShaman · 2012-01-23 04:00 · Score: 2
  
  If apple includes the hardware into the next version of iPhone, it would be trivial to create the software necessary to interoperate the scanning results. For that matter, throw in this technology for Droids phones too.
  Imagine the near endless possibilities. Software that will pick up increased pheromone for that nifty little dating app. Or how about one that allows parents to sniff out pot stashes or monitor other illegal forms of drug abuse. Maybe you're a gold prospector in Alaska. Yup, there's an app for that too.
  
  --
  Life is not for the lazy.
Argh by INT+21h · 2012-01-23 02:43 · Score: 4, Funny

If you meant *medical* tricorder, why didn't you say *medical* tricorder? There's a difference, ya'know.
1. Re:Argh by ceoyoyo · 2012-01-23 03:02 · Score: 2
  
  Backscatter X-ray scanners have been banned in Europe. Europe decided to use only millimetre wave scanners.
there's still no cure for cancer by cashman73 · 2012-01-23 02:44 · Score: 4, Funny

So pretty soon, your cell phone will not only be able to give you cancer, it will also be able to tell you that you have cancer, too! All they need is an app to cure it next! I see a tremendous marketing opportunity here!
ST:VOY by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-23 02:54 · Score: 3, Funny

Holographic Doctor: Hand me a tricorder.
Clueless Crewman: *hands him a tricorder*
Holographic Doctor [annoyed]: A medical tricorder.
Re:But will they make me breakfast by xstonedogx · 2012-01-23 02:57 · Score: 2

One order of juevos coming up!
Re:Just another way to get genital cancer by ceoyoyo · 2012-01-23 02:59 · Score: 4, Funny

Why? Do you dislike flashlights too?
Re:Silly Scale by somersault · 2012-01-23 03:01 · Score: 4, Informative

And what does "two orders of magnitude stronger" mean?
Around 100 time stronger.

--
which is totally what she said
Scariest thing in Star Trek by Junta · 2012-01-23 03:08 · Score: 2

The ship's computer would always oblige when asked where to find a crewman.
"Computer, locate Ensign Smith"
"Ensign Smith is currently in Holodeck 3 running his porn program again"

--
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
1. Re:Scariest thing in Star Trek by kryliss · 2012-01-23 05:12 · Score: 2
  
  Don't forget that the Captain tripped into the life boat with the young blonde lady..
  
  --
  --- If the bible proves the existence of God, then Superman comics prove the existence of Superman.
supply and demand by roc97007 · 2012-01-23 03:11 · Score: 4, Interesting

> In the not so distant future, every household might have a Star Trek-like tricorder capable of detecting cancer or other diseases."
I find that unlikely. Much more likely: Even though the device itself costs $12 to make, it will be rigidly controlled and only available at high cost (either through insurance premiums or taxes) from your health provider.
I take one of the most common blood pressure medications available. It's so common and the quantities are so high that manufacture is cheap, so the drug is cheap. I don't even bother with insurance -- I pay cash for the drug. (Approx $20 per month.) However, I can only get it by prescription. My doctor requires monthly visits, including a blood pressure check (fairly pointless as I do it myself 3-4 times a week) and a blood test requiring lab work. After insurance, the cost to me is approx $200 a month. They keep my prescriptions on a short leash, designed to run out right at my appointment date. (Sometimes if they're busy my prescription will run out before my appointment, so when I see them I've been off the drug for 3-4 days, unless I call the office and beg for an extension.) The doctor says this is to insure that I keep my appointment. When I point out I have never missed an appointment and don't deserve to be treated like an errant child, I'm informed that all patients are treated this way.
To recap, a common, well tested drug that costs $20 a month (cash -- no insurance) that I've been taking for years costs me $220 a month total to take due to additional visits and tests required by the doctor's office before they'll allow me to continue taking the drug. Based on this business model, even if full ST:TNG-type scanners were available for less than the price of an iPad, I strongly suspect the actual devices will be rigidly controlled by law and only available through expensive doctor's visits.
(In December I told my doctor to shove it. I'm now shopping around for a doctor who doesn't hold my meds hostage.)

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
1. Re:supply and demand by chrb · 2012-01-23 04:16 · Score: 2
  
  Like many things, medical regulations are often designed to protect the people who are unable, for whatever reason, to take care of themselves. Someone like yourself is probably responsible enough and qualified enough to handle your own medication and measurement of the side effects. However, for every responsible and educated person like yourself, there will be several people who aren't responsibile and educated enough to self-medicate. There are also many people who, in the absense of a prescription system, would accept drug advertising as fact, and proceed to self-diagnose, and then buy and apply inappropriate medications. I would like to see a system where people like yourself can opt-out and self-medicate to a large degree, but the system also needs to recognise that the majority of peole are not educated well enough to be given uncontrolled access to the contents of a modern pharmacy, and that we don't want a return to the era of unqualified quack-doctor-advertisements telling patients that random drug X will "help" cure their cancer.
  (Incidentally, I came across this interesting blog post recently : A blog in support of stupid people’s rights. The list of "stupid" people probably includes a large number of the population at some time in their lives).
2. Re:supply and demand by Lehk228 · 2012-01-23 10:23 · Score: 2
  
  if the end result was everyone using their walmart tricorders every month or so and cancer cases almost never getting more advanced than a few weeks before detection, that would still be enormously beneficial.
  
  --
  Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Re:But will they make me breakfast by Zaldarr · 2012-01-23 03:13 · Score: 4, Funny

Tea. Earl Grey. Hot.

--
I write professional videogame reviews! http://www.digitallydownloaded.net/
IF You Have Nothing To Hide by NEDHead · 2012-01-23 03:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

Why are you wearing clothes?
1. Re:IF You Have Nothing To Hide by NEDHead · 2012-01-23 03:24 · Score: 2
  
  When I go out naked my wife makes fun of me
Re:But will they make me breakfast by couchslug · 2012-01-23 03:14 · Score: 2

"Come on if you are going to be cooking my gonads the least you can do is make me breakfast too..."
One order Mountain Oysters coming up!

--
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Re:"T-Rays"??? Microwave Ovens and Heat Lamps by radtea · 2012-01-23 03:29 · Score: 2

So "T-rays" would tends to cook you.
Funny! Like saying, "Cell phones use microwave radiation, so OMG I'm being cooked by my phone!" Sadly, there are idiots of the kind you're parodying who really don't understand anything about power levels and who really do give credence to such nonsensical thinking, which is something I call "argument from abstraction": "X is a member of abstract category C. Y is also a member of abstract category C. Y has effect E, therefore X has effect E." It's nothing but a special for of undistributed middle, but it's common enough to deserve its own name, I think.

--
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
Re: radiation by IAmR007 · 2012-01-23 03:34 · Score: 3, Informative

Terahertz radiation is not nearly ionizing radiation; it's between infrared and microwave. It can't hurt you unless you use high enough intensities to cause burning.

The awesome thing about terahertz is that can also be used for spectroscopic analysis as well as imaging. The terahertz energies correspond to crystal phonon energies, which means substances and their crystal structure can be determined by a terahertz scan. This means that for security applications, you don't even need to form an image unless the signature of an explosive substance is seen, which reduces privacy concerns of such technology considerably.

The major downside, at least for devices operating at around 1THz, which I've worked on at the University of Leeds, is that water is opaque. Atmospheric water is highly annoying (samples in labs are run in dry nitrogen environments) and a damp cloth would completely block such scans. Many of the commercial devices run at 300GHz, however, so I'm not sure if water is a problem for them.
25 million American diabetics: "Faster please." by hirundo · 2012-01-23 03:38 · Score: 5, Informative

Seems like this story dropped the lede. The most significant use of this technology will be to detect blood glucose levels without lancing through the skin, making it a less dreaded process for millions of diabetics to monitor their conditions.
Re:Radiation? by Gilmoure · 2012-01-23 04:02 · Score: 2

Damn it! They should be working on getting rid of the Sun!

--
I drank what? -- Socrates
Re:Radiation? by fotbr · 2012-01-23 04:04 · Score: 2

Well, that would certainly put and end to global warming.
Re:No tricorder in the future. by VortexCortex · 2012-01-23 04:14 · Score: 2

There is money to be made by early detection and early treatment. Medical industry loves testinf for chronic diseases that require a steady stream of patented technology to be continuously performed with a steady monetized revenue stream. Assuming tricorders would be patented, and require a professional license to interpret the readouts...
"Socialists OR Capitalists, you must decide" Nope. This isn't a false dichotomy zone. Socialist constructs such as unions and GOVERNMENTS BY AND FOR THE PEOPLE work hand in hand with Capitalist constructs like free markets. It's when either begins morphing into the other that we have problems, Corporations influencing Governments & Buying laws, Corrupted Unions that needlessly throw their weight around.
As in all things the absolute extremes are uninhabitable; Moderation is key.
integrate it into my shower... by schlachter · 2012-01-23 04:29 · Score: 2

Wake up, get your morning coffee, then into the shower for your morning rinse and medical scan.

--
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
Re:Ring ring, this is the clue phone. by mcavic · 2012-01-23 06:01 · Score: 2

I'm not a physicist, and there isn't complete agreement on this issue anyway, but I'm pointing to these:
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/06/03/nyregion/connecticut-is-first-state-to-bar-hand-held-radar-guns.html
http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/radiofrequencyradiation/fnradpub.html#results1

And you can ask someone who works with microwave communication what the known dangers are. If the EM spectrum is arranged in order of danger, then IR would be more dangerous than microwave, not less.
Re:But will they make me breakfast by the_other_chewey · 2012-01-23 06:52 · Score: 2

What the hell is up with the bold text throughout your comment?
He's probably a professional comic letterer.