<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Attojoule Optoelectronics for Low-Energy Information Processing and Communications: a Tutorial Review · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1609.05510/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1609.05510/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Attojoule Optoelectronics for Low-Energy Information Processing and Communications: a Tutorial Review — mentioned by morphle</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39864999</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1609.05510:39864999</guid><pubDate>Fri, 29 Mar 2024 15:09:18 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Yes, basic physics shows [1] that we can use (free space) optics instead of wires inside chips. This will improve energy use and speeds by 3 orders of magnitude. Next to a transistor you put a photon detector. You can flip the transistor with the voltage from the photon detector by sending 10000 photons (or less). Pictures of such systems in the slides [2]. We can beam billions of optical channels with different frequencies in parallel across chips, exabits (yettabits, yottabits) per second. We will not compute with photons tough [4][5], the optical structures are to large and it would only…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1609.05510/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>physics.optics</category></item><item><title>Attojoule Optoelectronics for Low-Energy Information Processing and Communications: a Tutorial Review — mentioned by morphle</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39653588</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1609.05510:39653588</guid><pubDate>Sat, 09 Mar 2024 18:10:38 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;The arguments from the abstract of this paper have been refuted by Attojoule Optoelectronics for Low-Energy Information Processing and Communications: a Tutorial Review [1] and several other papers. [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.05510&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1609.05510/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>physics.optics</category></item><item><title>Attojoule Optoelectronics for Low-Energy Information Processing and Communications: a Tutorial Review — mentioned by morphle</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39553342</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1609.05510:39553342</guid><pubDate>Thu, 29 Feb 2024 18:49:39 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;I studied ultra wideband decades before they started to write papers refering to UWB standard definitions [1] so I might be out of tune (pun intended) with current definitions. A transceiver could use attosecond 10^−18, femtosecond 10^−15 picosecond 10^−12 or nanosecond 10^−9 pulses at very irregularly intervals. That seems (almost) random to any observer but not to a receiver which has pre-agreed those irregularly intervals with the transmitter (for example with quantum key distribution, with entangled particles). The receiver measures if there was a signal or not. It does not use power…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1609.05510/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>physics.optics</category></item></channel></rss>
