Resolution limit, possible to break it?

I usually take these articles with a grain of salt.

http://phys.org/news/2016-10-physici...igh-curse.html

On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 3:08:44 AM UTC-6, RichA wrote:
I usually take these articles with a grain of salt.

http://phys.org/news/2016-10-physici...igh-curse.html

Well, you know all those fancy new microprocessors they're selling these days?

They have on-chip traces and transistors that are built from areas as little as
14 nanometres in width.

However, they're made using optical lithography with ultraviolet light having a
wavelength of 193 nanometres.

They manage this by doing all sorts of tricks.

The first one is that they fiddle with the shapes of corners, adding spikes to
them, so that the images made aren't rounded at the corners - so that details,
while limited in size to no smaller than 96.5 nm, look crisp and clear at a
smaller resolution.

Then they do double patterning. But there are a few other tricks they do in
between.

John Savard

On Sunday, 16 October 2016 10:54:27 UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 3:08:44 AM UTC-6, RichA wrote:
I usually take these articles with a grain of salt.

http://phys.org/news/2016-10-physici...igh-curse.html

Well, you know all those fancy new microprocessors they're selling these days?

They have on-chip traces and transistors that are built from areas as little as
14 nanometres in width.

However, they're made using optical lithography with ultraviolet light having a
wavelength of 193 nanometres.

They manage this by doing all sorts of tricks.

The first one is that they fiddle with the shapes of corners, adding spikes to
them, so that the images made aren't rounded at the corners - so that details,
while limited in size to no smaller than 96.5 nm, look crisp and clear at a
smaller resolution.

Then they do double patterning. But there are a few other tricks they do in
between.

John Savard

Don't the lenses that do that lithography cost about $1M each?

On Sunday, 16 October 2016 16:54:27 UTC+2, Quadibloc wrote:

But there are a few other tricks they do in between.

John Savard

The science of tomorrow is indistinguishable from magic [tricks]?

Perhaps more importantly:

Will the scientists of tomorrow need a lovely assistant in a leotard?

On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 9:02:32 AM UTC-6, Chris.B wrote:

Will the scientists of tomorrow need a lovely assistant in a leotard?

We will need to do something to encourage more young Americans to study for
careers in science and engineering!

John Savard

On Sunday, 16 October 2016 17:53:20 UTC+2, Quadibloc wrote:

We will need to do something to encourage more young Americans to study for
careers in science and engineering!

John Savard

The US was 32nd amongst nations producing new S&E grads in 2012. [Wiki.]

If 98% of new grads go straight into US weapons research or the NSA that doesn't leave many to do the serious AGW stuff.

Does it? ;-)

On 16/10/2016 15:58, RichA wrote:
On Sunday, 16 October 2016 10:54:27 UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 3:08:44 AM UTC-6, RichA wrote:

I usually take these articles with a grain of salt.

http://phys.org/news/2016-10-physici...igh-curse.html

Well, you know all those fancy new microprocessors they're selling these days?

They have on-chip traces and transistors that are built from areas as little as
14 nanometres in width.

However, they're made using optical lithography with ultraviolet light having a
wavelength of 193 nanometres.

They manage this by doing all sorts of tricks.

The first one is that they fiddle with the shapes of corners, adding spikes to
them, so that the images made aren't rounded at the corners - so that details,
while limited in size to no smaller than 96.5 nm, look crisp and clear at a
smaller resolution.

Then they do double patterning. But there are a few other tricks they do in
between.

John Savard

Don't the lenses that do that lithography cost about $1M each?

That is the big price you pay for appearing to beat the Rayleigh
criterion. There is no free lunch.

With enough signal to noise beating the Rayleigh criterion with software
based deconvolution methods like Maxent by up to a factor of 3x has been
possible since the mid 1980's. Perhaps slightly before that.

The price you paid back then was that resolution after deconvolution
was dependent on local signal to noise ratio rather than being uniform
all over the image as in a classical diffraction limited image.

Another trick they can do is channel light down a sharpened diamond
almost in contact with the target producing a variant of an atomic force
microscope but using light and also by exploiting various non
linearities in real diffractive materials. See for example:

http://phys.org/news/2011-12-sharpen...croscopes.html

Riken are claiming a much higher improvement over a smaller field of view.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 5:08:44 AM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
I usually take these articles with a grain of salt.

http://phys.org/news/2016-10-physici...igh-curse.html

The diffraction limit is not applicable when meta-materials are used. Resolution limit is then practically unlimited.

http://www.richardfisher.com