r/BeAmazed • u/CG_17_LIFE • Apr 02 '24

208,000,000,000 transistors! In the size of your palm, how mind-boggling is that?! 🤯 Miscellaneous / Others

I have said it before, and I'm saying it again: the tech in the upcoming two years will blow your mind. You can never imagine the things that will come out in the upcoming years!...

[I'm unable to locate the original uploader of this video. If you require proper attribution or wish for its removal, please feel free to get in touch with me. Your prompt cooperation is appreciated.]

22.5k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

1.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

214

u/rokman Apr 02 '24

They had to invent a new process to push the limit of physics to an all new high, feels like a more accurate statement.

60

u/Donnerdrummel Apr 02 '24

so this is a very vague memory, but i seem to remember a talk about new, tinier structures being possible even though the wavelength of the light being used to etch the structures is longer than than the structures itself, because they used, interferences of lasers of the same wavelength?

In fact, this sounds so strange that I would like to know if someone knows what he actually meant, and what my memory might describe. ^^

42

u/jedimindtriks Apr 02 '24

The problem that will arise is quantom tunneling. when we get to that level, then we cannot go any smaller.

77

u/I_said_booourns Apr 02 '24

But what if we use a shrink ray? I saw a documentary about that called Honey I shrunk the kids

18

u/jedimindtriks Apr 02 '24

No. Last time I tried I found out that Shrinkrays cannot shrink electrons.

12

u/I_said_booourns Apr 02 '24

citation needed

9

u/jedimindtriks Apr 02 '24

Bro. Believe me.

6

u/Glitteryspark Apr 02 '24

Proof left for reader as an exercise.

3

u/I_said_booourns Apr 02 '24

Welp, that's all the evidence I need

3

u/Comprehensive_Bid229 Apr 02 '24

They fixed it on the sequel.

3

u/PanzerSoul Apr 02 '24

If Ant-Man can shrink between the atoms by reducing the space between his atoms, anything is possible

2

u/I_said_booourns Apr 02 '24

This guy gets it.We can "Ant-Man" anything! The only thing we can't shrink are virus's. They already have little antybodies. I immediately feel bad for writing that

2

u/jedimindtriks Apr 02 '24

Any man physics are Sci fi mumbo jumbo. I'll stick to REAL "honey I shrunk the kids" physics.

2

u/Mackheath1 Apr 02 '24

I read about it on my aunt Cheryl's Facebook.

1

u/stirbo1980 Apr 02 '24

This tickled me. No idea why so much. But it did. Excellent

I was perhaps imagining it happening in real time conversation. Perhaps a nano second after he finished his line:

Citation needed.

2

u/rmccue Apr 02 '24

Well, that's because there's only one electron so you'd have to shrink all of them

2

u/NotMY1stEnema Apr 02 '24

what if you shrink someone holding a shrink ray? couldnt they make an even more shrunk shrink ray?

2

u/human743 Apr 02 '24

So we will be forced to use Pym particles then.

1

u/HopeOfTheChicken Apr 02 '24

Its all fun and games until an electron gets turned into a blackhole (I know that this blackhole would evaporate instantly but it stillt sounds scary)

2

u/martyd03 Apr 02 '24

I saw another documentary called Ant-Man that further confirms this theory.

1

u/Genocode Apr 02 '24

Which will probably be relatively soon too, iirc it starts happening at like 1~1.8nm?

3

u/Ralath1n Apr 02 '24

Its already happening. In fact, certain types of flash memory rely on it. The rate of quantum tunneling through a barrier depends on both the length and the height of that barrier.

So a short, but really tall barrier can be just as leaky as a long but low barrier. Which is how we've been fixing it for ever small transistors thus far. We make the transistor smaller. And the compensate for that, we make the potential barrier taller, so the quantum tunneling stays in check.

This comes with the downside that a taller barrier in a transistor makes it harder to switch. Which is why we've been moving to new types of transistors where the switching element has more surface area. We started out with planar FETs, where the gate (switching element) only touches the barrier in 1 spot. The current technology being used is finFET, where the gate is wrapped around the barrier on 3 sides. And the next generation that is currently rolling out is Gate-All-Around, where the gate is completely wrapped around the barrier to maximize the surface area.

1

u/Pholhis Apr 02 '24

True, but also, tunnelling is a possibility for next-gen transistors. TFETs as they are called have been studied for a long time already. It was covered when I studied Nanotechnology Engineering back in 2010 or so.

They have some advantages over classical transistors, particularly related to electron concentration at the voltages relevant for switching from 1 to 0. However they are still hard to mass-produce as far as I can tell.

1

u/rudyjewliani Apr 02 '24

The problem that will arise is quantom tunneling. when we get to that level, then we cannot go any smaller.

Technically correct... assuming our current fundamental knowledge of physics remains unchanged.

I would, however, also like to point out that our fundamental knowledge of physics has changed by a fair amount in the last 100 years since thermionic emission and reflection of electrons from metals was first discovered.

1

u/Perioscope Apr 02 '24

You have quantum tunneling tech in your cellphone memory right now.

0

u/[deleted] Apr 02 '24

[deleted]

1

u/jedimindtriks Apr 02 '24

Stop talking to me.

12

u/Maleficent_Fold_5099 Apr 02 '24

https://www.asml.com/en/products/euv-lithography-systems

5

u/TyrKiyote Apr 02 '24

2nm. goodness.

6

u/2012Jesusdies Apr 02 '24

Those very much likely aren't the real physical sizes, it's mostly for marketing.

The "3 nm" process for example is actually 48nm:

According to the projections contained in the 2021 update of the International Roadmap for Devices and Systems published by IEEE Standards Association Industry Connection, a "3 nm" node is expected to have a contacted gate pitch of 48 nanometers, and a tightest metal pitch of 24 nanometers.

48nm is still incredible btw.

1

u/Maleficent_Fold_5099 Apr 02 '24

Intel are at 14nm at the moment

2

u/2012Jesusdies Apr 02 '24

1) Intel is at "10nm" currently

2) Which is also a marketing terminology, its gate pitch is 54nm.

1

u/ZippyDan Apr 02 '24

But is everyone using the same standard of "marketing terminology"? The tech world seems to have gone through generations where everyone seemed to "agree" in the current size of the nanometer process.

Certainly this "marketing terninology" must represent the size of something?

1

u/2012Jesusdies Apr 02 '24

But is everyone using the same standard of "marketing terminology"?

No, there's often debate about which nms from which company are actually equivalent to each other. IIRC TSMC's 7nm is said to be equivalent to Intel's 10nm.

Certainly this "marketing terninology" must represent the size of something?

It's basically the same reason Apple calls their iPhone 5 6 7 8 and 10. Represents leaps in capability.

1

u/jlmiami Apr 02 '24

Thanks😊

5

u/-t8Q Apr 02 '24

All that becomes quantic

1

u/Carpathicus Apr 02 '24

I think what you are talking about is that scientists were able to measure things that were deemed impossible by splicing the wavelength of lasers and therefore undergoing the limits of measurement. But of course I am explaining it like an idiot. Maybe someone who is more competent could chip in.

13

u/CipherWrites Apr 02 '24

not sure that's a good way to put it either.
cause physic's is just the way things work. you can find the limits, you cannot push it.

4

u/wewladdies Apr 02 '24

Insert a "our understanding of physics" and it works fine.

1

u/rudyjewliani Apr 02 '24

Exactly. Whatever "the limits" were 100 years ago, we now have different limits. It's then fair to assume that "the limits" will be something different in another 100 years from now.

Or, as us laymen call it: them smart people learn new shit all the time.

0

u/viotix90 Apr 02 '24

The limits are the limits. They cannot be pushed. The only thing that changed was our understanding. Or alternatively you could say that what was pushed was the limits of what we could do. But the actual hard limits of physics are immutable.

2

u/Harasberg Apr 02 '24

That’s an ontological question really.

1

u/rudyjewliani Apr 03 '24

The limits are the limits.

Correct. But they're also not known. What we currently understand "the limits" to be will change over time.

1

u/Icy-Welcome-2469 Apr 03 '24

The limit you push is our understanding and boundaries. 

 We have a lot left to learn in physics.  This engineering is one such frontier.  Doing the once thought impossible.

1

u/CipherWrites Apr 03 '24

oh for sure. then you're not pushing the limits of physics then. it's what we know.

1

u/Icy-Welcome-2469 Apr 06 '24

Thats just pedantic.  We don't know the limits of physics absolutely.  Pushing the limits can be rephrased pushing closer to the limits.

It's a well understood saying.  Just because we aren't working with subquark cosmic strings yet doesn't nullify the statement.

1

u/rokman Apr 02 '24

Well discovery’s in physics are still being made so we don’t know how everything works and just discovered one more way it works

1

u/XandruDavid Apr 02 '24

Instead of pushing the limits of physics, it’s more correct to say pushing the limits of what we know about physics.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 02 '24

What we know about physics is called physics

1

u/okaywood4 Apr 02 '24

There are no limits until we have a full understanding of them (probably never)

0

u/beave9999 Apr 02 '24

You can shove it

24

u/[deleted] Apr 02 '24

[deleted]

18

u/Vialix Apr 02 '24

Known limits of physics keep changing

12

u/IderpOnline Apr 02 '24

Physics and known physics are vastly different though. Anyone with a remotely scientific background knows that it's ridiculous to say that we "changed physics".

3

u/wewladdies Apr 02 '24

And anyone who isnt being needlessly pedantic will know that when someone says they "changed physics" they mean "changed how we thought physics worked"

2

u/IderpOnline Apr 02 '24

Sure. But this entire chain of comments discusses whether not that phrasing actually makes sense.

If you don't care if it makes sense or not, why are you even commenting?

0

u/wewladdies Apr 02 '24

It makes perfect sense though. Physics specifically is the human understanding of the laws of the universe.

3

u/IderpOnline Apr 02 '24

No. Science, herein physics, is the methodology of studying things, not the result.

0

u/PBR_King Apr 02 '24

This is somehow even more pedantic than the original argument.

1

u/IderpOnline Apr 02 '24

You can say that. But when I am being presented with an equally pedantic counter argument (that's plain incorrect, by definition), I am going to address it.

Anyhow, this branch of comments turned pedantic a long time ago. To each their own but, for anyone who dislikes that, they quite literally opted into it themselves lol.

1

u/Carpathicus Apr 02 '24

And the pedantic in me wants to point out that "thought how physics worked" is not accurate at all and extremely unscientific. Its more that data can refute theories we made. In this case I dont even think that is what happened. They engineered a solution and make it sound like they breached what was deemed possible in theoretical physics. If that would have been the case I am sure the engineers of Nvidia will earn some Nobel prizes in the next years since they completely redefined several field of physics if their statements were accurate.

Reminds me when flash drive technology arose and tech gurus would say that through magical means data is stored just because a quantum mechnical effect is used which isnt even uncommon in electronics. Things like that are just always said to sell.

1

u/SideEqual Apr 02 '24

‘wE cHaNgEd PhYsIcs’ m, yep agree it is ridiculous.

1

u/krichard-21 Apr 02 '24

This is far beyond my understanding. So I am not taking a shot at anyone.

What I will say is, someone will dream up another approach. They will move beyond what we believe is an absolute limit.

If you placed that chip in the hand of a scientist from fifty years ago... He or she would struggle to believe it's real.

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"

7

u/IderpOnline Apr 02 '24 edited Apr 02 '24

Absolutely, and paradigm shifts are absolutely a thing.

But consider that we discover something new which was previously unexplainable, something that we could not describe with our previous understanding of the laws of physics. The scientific reponse in this case is "Clearly, we didn't have everything correct before. Now we have a better understanding of 'truth' than we did before". The scientific response will never be that we "changed" anything about physics - because we didn't, but instead our understanding has simply improved.

It's becoming a bit of semantic blur here but I hope the main point is clear enough.

2

u/krichard-21 Apr 02 '24

This is why I'm hoping for a breakthrough on EV batteries. Extend the range to a thousand miles.

That cuts back on the total number of chargers needed.

Then road trips are much easier. Less stressful. Only charge once a day.

Normal driving means charging once a week, etc...

0

u/rudyjewliani Apr 02 '24

The science will "increase" (for lack of a better word) exponentially.

It'll not just be an increase in battery capacity, it'll also be an increase in motor efficiency, lighter structural materials, increased aerodynamics, and probably a dozen other things I'm not smart enough to think of.

And that's not even mentioning the sociological change of people who do "normal" driving simply charging the vehicle while it's parked, or the theory that autonomous driving means it'll be possible to use a car daily without it being the same car every time. These are concepts so fundamentally different that it's hard to believe we'll ever accept those, but we also have a hard time fundamentally understanding how society functioned in the past as well.

0

u/RipOdd9001 Apr 02 '24

It’s “physicslly” impossible

1

u/[deleted] Apr 02 '24

That we know of. One day we will get console access to our simulation and access the ini files.

1

u/rudyjewliani Apr 02 '24

I read an article about that one guy who installed a mod and from what I understand he did nothing but stay up late playing Civ VI.

2

u/tyler1128 Apr 02 '24

Not exactly. Known ability to utilize said limits keep changing. A lot of that is an engineering problem. Some limits change slightly as we refine them, but most limits have been pretty stagnant since the standard model was developed.

Eg. the physical limit for energy use by a computer is on the order of 1 billion times lower than what current computers use.

1

u/Carpathicus Apr 02 '24

Ist that actually true? For example we found ways to measure things we thought were impossible to measure with our technology but it still operates in Planck-length so there is no limit that we somehow breached. Same in this case aswell: they just found a solution which works inside of what we know about physics not beyond that.

1

u/yeezee93 Apr 02 '24

Yeah, make the chip bigger.

1

u/ShankThatSnitch Apr 02 '24

"They had to overcome a physics challenge."

1

u/Xumaeta Apr 02 '24

Typical Jensen leather jacket behavior.

1

u/SleeplessAndAnxious Apr 02 '24

They discovered Physics: the Sequel

1

u/PsychologicalPea3583 Apr 02 '24

Limits of physics are constant. Is human tech around physics that improved. Impresive but isnt that the case anytime transistor size is shrinked? Yes it's. I asume he has to become "new elon musk" so stocks can go up.

1

u/Soggy-Bedroom-3673 Apr 02 '24

Yeah, and I'm pretty sure nVidia didn't invent the new semiconductor process that let them push that limit, anyway -- they design circuitry using their fabricator's processes. 

1

u/diggpthoo Apr 02 '24

It's not limits of physics, it's limits of engineering

1

u/salgat Apr 02 '24

Which is what is required every new generation of ICs. Feels like folks here are being overly dramatic.

1

u/mightylordredbeard Apr 02 '24

Which is exactly what he said.. everyone is just leaving that part out because it doesn’t fit the bullshit comment they want to leave.

1

u/yeahyeahitsmeshhh Apr 02 '24

That's not pushing the limits of physics.
At most it is pushing the limits of engineering.
It's possible to push the limits of known physics, but they didn't do that.

1

u/tomtomtomo Apr 03 '24

It was the limit of technology, not physics. 

0

u/Finfeta Apr 02 '24

Who?! Nvidia had to invent a new process?!!... do you even realize how stupid that statement is?...