Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Molecular Transistor Can Control Single Electrons

Posted by samzenpus on from the getting-small dept.

Eloking writes: An international team of scientists has been able to create a microscopic transistor made up of one single molecule and a number of atoms. Gizmag reports: "Researchers from Germany, Japan and the United States have managed to create a tiny, reliable transistor assembled from a single molecule and a dozen additional atoms. The transistor reportedly operates so precisely that it can control the flow of single electrons, paving the way for the next generation of nanomaterials and miniaturized electronics." The team that conducted the research included teams from the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory and the NTT Basic Research Laboratories in Japan.

46 comments

  1. Smaller than 1 electron? by wimconradie · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wonder if a single electron ever poses a cap on progress in going smaller in technology... Although I must say time (given enough) always tends to eventually break through such limitations.

    1. Re: Smaller than 1 electron? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Photonics?

    2. Re: Smaller than 1 electron? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is one option, but perhaps one could also encode more information into the electron.
      Even with a single electron you can transfer an analog value by encoding it in the electrons velocity or spin.
      This opens up for multi-level operations on a single electron.

    3. Re:Smaller than 1 electron? by Muad'Dave · · Score: 2

      Weyl Fermions are the next 'big thing' in electronics.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    4. Re:Smaller than 1 electron? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 3, Interesting

      _Energy_ and entropy propose some profound limitations. There have been some very interesting ideas published for quantum computing, which is not necessarily binary, and could another step upwards. The ability to actually trigger a measurable change for recording equipment to read an answer is, itself, a limitation.

    5. Re:Smaller than 1 electron? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if a single electron ever poses a cap on progress in going smaller in technology...

      Although I must say time (given enough) always tends to eventually break through such limitations.

      Eventually break through such limitations? Why sure, son, they'll just cut the electron in half and send each piece through separately.

    6. Re:Smaller than 1 electron? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, I vaguely recall some people remarking that some of the quantum computing's wilder performance claims may eventually turn out to be a folly, simply because achieving them would break the macroscopic laws of physics.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    7. Re:Smaller than 1 electron? by towermac · · Score: 1

      Interesting.

      And yet - "It is the most basic building block of all electrons," ...

      Shouldn't the fact that the electron is no longer a fundamental particle and the standard model is apparently wrong be bigger news?

  2. Re: This was on Gizmag yesterday by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course it was on gizmag first, that's where the link goes to.

  3. There's that confusion again: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    "Once that number drops to single digits these transistors will become inoperable as quantum mechanics starts getting in the way, with electrons spontaneously jumping from one end of the switch to the other whether the switch is open or closed."

    Nah, the electron doesn't jump anywhere, your detection of where it is jumps. The confusion between the detection-of-something and the actual-something, again.

    The old 'flock of starlings problem', if you can only detect the flock and not the individual starling, then the flock appears to jump from place to place randomly instantaneously, and sometimes appears in two places at once. But that not the bird that's doing that, its the flock-detector.

    1. Re:There's that confusion again: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Nah, the electron doesn't jump anywhere, your detection of where it is jumps.

      Um, when you make a perfect position measurement, the wavefunction somehow collapses to a single position eigenvector, so it *is* where you measure it, that's kind of a fundamental property of quantum mechanics that you can't just ignore. The fact that electrons absolutely do not behave like flocks of starlings is also something you can't just ignore. Stop with the naive reinterpretations. If you have a novel interpretation, it has to generate the right maths. Flocks of starlings don't do that. Sorry that QM is hard, but that's not a human failing, it's just how nature works. The human failing is denying this.

      If you're finding QM hard, try learning Newtonian mechanics properly first. No statistic of a Newtonian system jumps from value to value without passing through intervening values, and that includes whatever you consider to be the "position" of a flock of birds.

      Captcha: cringe

    2. Re:There's that confusion again: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The confusion between the detection-of-something and the actual-something, again.

      You're confused alright.

      The old 'flock of starlings problem'

      It's so old, I never heard of it.

    3. Re:There's that confusion again: by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Thanks, that's the way I understand it. I haven't heard the flock of birds analogy before but I have seen large flocks like this one in Australia.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    4. Re:There's that confusion again: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      " so it *is* where you measure it, "

      It is WHAT you measure. If you can only measure *IT* then you detect the IT where you measure it. You see why that is?
      So your flock is where you detect the flock to be because that's what you can detect as the flock.

      "If you're finding QM hard, try learning Newtonian mechanics properly first. "

      Really you QM lot have to go back to the basic 2 slits experiment and ask yourself how ONE single indivisible thing goes through both slits at the same time. Then take a look at the detector, the detector is adding your quantum effect. You could never detect half an electron or photon in each slit because the detector could never detect such a thing.

      i.e. you can never see the starling, you see the world through 'flock' sized eyes.

      So now all the QM maths becomes maths predicting where the flock will be detected but it is NOT a description of whats going on, its a prediction of what you detector can see.

    5. Re:There's that confusion again: by GigaplexNZ · · Score: 2

      Except the electron actually can tunnel to the other side even when the transistor is turned off. Arguing whether you can or can't observe it passing through the blockade is moot, when all you care about is failing to stop the electron from passing through.

    6. Re:There's that confusion again: by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Disclaimer: I don't think an electron is composed of a flock of smaller particles, I visualise it as a kind of "knot" in a force field, sometimes the field lines are "pulled" tight enough to observe the knot. Other times it's like a loose extension cord, you not sure if there's a knot until you start to untangle it.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    7. Re:There's that confusion again: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whether you've heard it or not, can you understand now why the detection of a thing is not the thing itself?

      So when you're faced with a simple problem like 2 slit experiment, how can a fundamental particle go through both slits and yet be indivisible? Your experiment tells you it does go through both, your physics model says its indivisible. Hiding in the maths doesn't fix the conflict. Saying "just look at this math and don't think of the model" isn't an answer.

      You don't even need to scale up to bird sized things to see the issue, consider a proton. When you believed a photon was a fundamental particle you detected its location and size, it jumped around, and did all sorts of probalistic stuff. Now you think its made up of 3 qwarks, you could (in theory) detect their (qwark) location and calculate a corresponding position of where the proton they make up would be measured by your proton detector! Did the proton jump? No, it never existed, it was an effect created by 3 qwarks! Your detection of a proton was the detection of the effect of these qwarks.

    8. Re:There's that confusion again: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like a flocking nightmare.

    9. Re:There's that confusion again: by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Watch the clip I posted below. I believe the GP's point is there appears to be; no flock, one flock, multiple flocks, and the flock can appear to 'instantaneously jump' from place to place. IANAQP but I think it's a very neat way to visualise a quantum jump. If you understand the math of QM that's great, math is the language used for the best description we have of nature. The rest of us who barely remember what an eigenvalue is from the math degree we did decades ago have to rely on tenuous analogies and imperfect metaphors when describing it with a 'natural' language, such as english.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    10. Re:There's that confusion again: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quantum tunneling can cause an electron to "jump" to locations that should be impossible for it to ever be.

    11. Re:There's that confusion again: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You completely ignore the whole part of the two slit experiment that the electrons appear in areas that are not in line of site of the electron emitters. Electrons travel in strait lines. Now you explain how the electron appears between the slits.

    12. Re:There's that confusion again: by HybridST · · Score: 1

      Read this:
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

      Even when sent through the slits one at a time the electrons interfere with themselves and the full interferance pattern will emerge over time. The pattern vanishes when using a detector to determine which of the two slits the particle goes through. This is one of the factors that confirms wave-particle duality in the framework of Quantum Mechanics. It's also currently a 1st year physics lab for University students at many institutions.

      --
      Ever notice that Cobra Commander sounds an awful lot like Star scream?
    13. Re:There's that confusion again: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because *you* see two slits. *It* doesn't.

    14. Re:There's that confusion again: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's spelled "quark" you dumbass hillbilly.

    15. Re:There's that confusion again: by Cito · · Score: 1

      No, Quark is busy running a bar on DS9, fleecing customers out of gold pressed latinum like a stereotypical Jew.

    16. Re:There's that confusion again: by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      Your experiment tells you it does go through both, your physics model says its indivisible.

      The particle model said it was indivisible. The wave model did not. Your flock of starlings is essentially the wave model.

      Showing that neither the particle model nor the wave model could, by itself, replicate the double slit experiment, is literally the whole point of the double slit experiment. You're pointing out the particle incompatibility alone.

      In your final paragraph, you confuse photon and proton. I assume you meant proton throughout?

      (You know, "flock of starlings" "quantum mechanics" brings up slashdot AC comments multiple times on the 1st page of results).

      "just look at this math and don't think of the model" isn't an answer.

      If your model can produce math that predicts at least as well as the existing math, then you're in business. But otherwise, it is indeed an answer. There's basically no math that's ever done a better job.

    17. Re:There's that confusion again: by Caesar+Tjalbo · · Score: 1

      ... flock of starlings ...

      Is called a "murmuration".

      --
      "I'm not much interested in interoperability. I want substitutability. I want to be able to throw your software out."
    18. Re:There's that confusion again: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course you're correct. I was posing a rhetorical for the other person was using his "flock" theory saying than electrons really are always particles and the "quantum" part of just an artifact caused by how we're measuring them.

  4. The future is going to be incredible... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's just a shame I won't see too much of it.

    1. Re:The future is going to be incredible... by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 3, Funny

      Heh. My future had mile-high skyscrapers, colonies on the moon, atomic powered airplanes, fusion power too cheap to meter, and FLYING CARS, goddamit, FLYING FUCKING CARS!

    2. Re:The future is going to be incredible... by flappinbooger · · Score: 0

      Heh. My future had mile-high skyscrapers, colonies on the moon, atomic powered airplanes, fusion power too cheap to meter, and FLYING CARS, goddamit, FLYING FUCKING CARS!

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      This kind of ineptitude is the reason we don't have flying cars yet.

      --
      Flappinbooger isn't my real name
    3. Re:The future is going to be incredible... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only do the cars fly, they reproduce sexually?!

  5. You insensitive clod!!!! by TapeCutter · · Score: 1, Funny

    Give people a fucking warning before you post.
    That sudden hard-right turn into political lala land almost gave me whiplash.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    1. Re:You insensitive clod!!!! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Didn't you mean whig-lash?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  6. Re:This was on Gizmag yesterday by dave420 · · Score: 1

    I know, right?! It's as if they respect the scientific method and humans in general. So fucked up! Next they'll be telling us marching around in blackface shouting "oh lawdy!" is not cool!

  7. Re:Yes, but what's the gender balance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait until the SJWs find out that the molecules keep the electrons segregated.

  8. no, not a breakthrough by markhahn · · Score: 1

    manufacturability is what drives the industry, not exotic physics. this project was an interesting demo of tricks you can play with an STM, but it offers nothing towards actual transistors or circuits.

    1. Re:no, not a breakthrough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Luddite. Hard drives got better, therefore we'll be 3D printing single-electron transistors in our living room.

    2. Re:no, not a breakthrough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except we were all asking when HDs would be replaced by WROM chips in the 80's. So may be a while out ;-)

  9. But that wouldn't be electronics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would be fermionics. Or weylics.

  10. uggh by shadowrat · · Score: 1

    it's taken me a long time to be able to solder smt components. how am i supposed to work with a single molecule!?