Re: IBM - New SUB-Nanometer STACKED Chip

On 6/30/26 17:58, Paul wrote:
> On Tue, 6/30/2026 2:51 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> On 2026-06-30, c186282 <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/30/26 09:51, Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/30/2026 5:14 PM, c186282 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Can you fabricate 0.000000...0000000001 nm chips?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is zero the seal or wall? :)
>>>>>
>>>>>      Um, pretty quick you get to ATOMS ... and, for any
>>>>>      normal electronics, that's IT.
>>>>
>>>> You cannot have 0.000000....00 nm chip.
>>>>
>>>> That's a void, empty, nothing. :)
>>
>> I tried to think through the implications of this
>> but I got a divide error.
>>
>>>     "Electronics" are now about literal atom-thick structures.
>>>     Can't go any smaller.
>>>
>>>     Any better future stuff will have to exploit quantum
>>>     effects - get more bang for yer nanometer. Alas quantum
>>>     stuff isn't as deterministic as bulk matter devices
>>>     and suffer from the uncertainty principle.
>>
>> Omigod, we might have to revive the KISS principle
>> in order to get anything more done.  The proponents
>> of complexity as a weapon will be so disappointed...
>>
> 
> This article is from the year 2001.
> 
>     https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2001/04/new-process-makes-near-atomic-scale-nanobumps
> 
>        "A nanometer is equal to the width of 3 silicon atoms."
> 
>        "But the technique is limited by the wavelength of light, and to date,
>         commercial optical lithography has not been able to produce features
>         smaller than 150 nanometers in width."
> 
> OMG, we'd doomed, he said. Progress, stopped in its very tracks.
> The AM table radio can never exist now. We will be loading our
> muskets with ball and powder, like always. I will have to fold
> my own towels now, as a $20,000 robot to do the job can never exist.
> 
> Articles like that put the pace of progress in perspective.
> 
> Whether we do a thing, depends on what it costs. So while IBM
> can publish an article, it's not a given that this scheme will
> work out. If it adds even a few more process steps, it will be
> rejected as impractical. It currently takes 12 weeks to make
> a chip. If there is an earthquake, a single quarter of yearly output
> is thrown away (any wafers inside process machines, being etched,
> doped, or sputtered, thrown away). If the manufacturing time of chips
> were to double, to 24 weeks (about half a year), then the exposure
> to earthquake losses, increases.
> 
>     Paul

   Apparently IBM has indeed BUILT these chips.

   Whether they can be "commercial" is yet to be seen,
   but they can license their techniques and hardware.
   Even ONE nanometer, stacked, chips would have a
   large market. If you can't go faster then do MORE
   with the old speed/space.

   But, for electronic reasons, the increasing quantum
   issues, this IS probably about as far as possible.

   Some whole new paradigms will be needed and quantum
   will always suffer from uncertainty, not reliable
   enough for yer financial shit. Think the Taxman is
   gonna give you 'quantum uncertainty' slack ?

   Apparently Ilhan Omar was using a quantum computer
   when doing her last tax statement  :-)