Talk:Spintronics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Less radical spintronic devices would allow one to put a pair of signals through a single wire, by using spin polarised electrons and producing a different signal on spin up electrons to the spin down. This has the effect of doubling the bandwidth of the cable."
- Really? Signals aren't sent on individual electrons; they are sent on the electric waves of the electrons repelling each other. The actual speed of electron travel through a wire is very slow. Do spin up and spin down electrons repel only themselves? Or a different amount? - Omegatron 02:34, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
-
- I agree. There have been some experiments on 'spin transport'. This abstract suggests that the transport of spin (or 'spin current') over a distance of 100 micrometres is a big deal (or was in 1999). I think this is done by creating ballistic electrons inside semiconductors. This is obviously a far cry from creating macroscopic spin wires. I'll put a 'hypothetical' note in the article. --Heron 11:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- So this is probably just the result of journalists trying to write about science again? And everyone accepting it as fact.
- Seems like it would be a lot less work to just string up two wires. :-) - Omegatron 15:42, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
-
Contents |
[edit] Question on disambiguation
In the upper-right "Unsolved problems" box, I had changed the link to charge to link to electric charge in order to disambiguate. May I get some opinions on whether or not that was correct? A user changed it back, but did not explain why. Aguerriero (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, well I'm going to change it to charge (physics), lacking any comment. Aguerriero (talk) 23:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Brief Question
In the first paragaph it is stated that a normal pair of electrons can have four combinations (00, 01, 10, 11) It is then stated that a pair of qubits can have eight combinations. I'm not certain but should this not be 9? (00, 0u, 0d, uu, ud, u0, du, dd, d0) Sorry if I'm incorrect, I was just looking at it logically...
[edit] GMR ratio
I came up with this TeX for the GMR ratio:
But I'm not sure whether it can fit inside the article. It is probably better than the present representation, the plain text "(Antiparallel Resistance - Parallel Resistance) / Parallel Resistance x 100%", but it doesn't fit in line. — Itai (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] the other Spintronics
List of NAS manufacturers mentions "Spintronics" and links here. Is there really a "Spintronics" company that sells NAS systems? My Google search is finds only references to the physics concept, not any company. --76.209.28.72 09:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re-write needed?
The first paragraph of the main article seems very badly worded to me. Why is there a segue into talking about unrelated properties of electrons? And isn't spin a general property of fermions, not just electrons? Wouldn't the concept of 'spintronics' also incorporate this? 314159 00:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Spin Coulomb Drag
I suggest that the effects of spin Coulomb drag (or spin drag, for short) as predicted in 2000 by Giovanni Vignale and Irene D'Amico of the University of Missouri - Columbia, and confirmed in 2005 by Joseph Orenstein et alia of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, be discussed in this article.--Corkgkagj 22:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Removed the unresolved problem
This does not belong here. Unresolved problems are reserved for fundamental problems, not about problems about how to develop something to the practical state. Likewise a space elevator isn`t a fundamental physical problem either. It might fit in a e.g. "hot topic" template.Slicky (talk) 08:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)