Talk:Spintronics

Fluxtronics?

I am not a general wiki user - but a PhD level scientist who has worked on spintronics for the past 7 years. I have never heard the term "fluxtronics" in regards to "spintronics" so I removed it from the page. If this is incorrect, I apologize and you could go back to the original.

A simple google search also confirms that fluxtronics might mean certain things, but is definitely not a clear alternative for spintronics.

Zero Gap Materials

In the Wikipedia article for Graphene (in the "Electronic properties" section), it is mentioned "Intrinsic graphene is a semi-metal or zero-gap semiconductor." I had no idea what "zero gap" meant but I deduce it is a part of spintronics theory. This link [1] seems to be on the topic. It would be nice if there was a section in Spintronics about "zero gap" stuff and it was then linked from Graphene at the mention of "zero gap" to the zero gap section we make in Spintronics. Ann Vole (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree: Zero-[energy]-band gap materials are not specific to spintronics and IMO graphene should not be linked here as you suggest. 'Zero-gap' could be explained in band gap or semimetal. - Rod57 (talk) 12:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetical

"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)[reply]

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)

Correct me if I'm wrong but I would understand it rather as being able to seperate the electrons into 2 streams by their spin. If you are able to send signals only "spin up" and only "spin down" and you can distinguish at the receiver between those two states it is of course possible to send twice as much information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feos.erebos (talk • contribs) 19:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Okay, well I'm going to change it to charge (physics), lacking any comment. Aguerriero (talk) 23:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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...

GMR ratio

I came up with this TeX for the GMR ratio:

${\frac {\left(Antiparallel~Resistance-Parallel~Resistance\right)}{Parallel~Resistance}}\times 100\%$

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

There's an "Applied Spintronics Inc." in the MRAM business, and a free energy scam called "Spintronics, Inc." but I don't find any such current company making Network Attached Storage. However, many disk drives do have giant magnetoresistance heads, so there is a bit of overlap... LeadSongDog come howl! 15:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

In the Theory section some notation must be cleared up. The fact that anyone that reads the article is already oriented as to what each Greek letter means is a little prejudiced, or at least it isolates new readers from further understanding. Since this is Wikipedia, all relevant information is already written somewhere. If not, notation explanations and legends are in order. Ebichuhamster (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Removed the unresolved problem

{{unsolved|physics|Is it possible to construct a practical electronic device that operates on the [[Spin (physics)|spin]] of the [[electron]], rather than its [[charge (physics)|charge]]?}}

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)[reply]

Plans for major edit in 2008

This spintronics page is in need of a major round of edits. In particular, it does not address the profound difference between spin transport in metals and semiconductors, and the particular challenges with spin injection and detection in the latter. The only mention of "semiconductor" is in the context of ferromagnetic semiconductors like GaMnAs. There are also several inaccurate/misleading statements in need of correction (including historical origins of the field), and more recent review references should be updated. Please respond to this post if you have any specific suggestions on topics; I intend to start work on this in the next few weeks but want others to have the opportunity to comment before I begin. --Ianappelbaum (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OR or future assumption

Can someone review the first "Applications" section? It reads like a mix of OR, description of the future and assumption. Needs sourcing, citing, and some strict cleanup. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated vandalism

By following the IP addresses listed in the revision history, I believe few people are unmasking this.

Ianappelbaum (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Potential and DNA spin filters

DNA puts a new spin on electrons says "Spintronics holds great promise for creating circuits that are faster and more energy efficient than standard semiconductor devices. This is because the energy required to transport and process spins is much less than that needed to create electron currents. " Should we add something like this to the intro ? And is the DNA spin filter worth mentioning ? Rod57 (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Theory section needs a rewrite

The emphasis of the theory section is on explaining some of the mathematics of spin and the magnetic moment of the electron, but the part at the very end about non-equilibrium spin populations is the fundamental issue and should be expanded. The theory should give a cursory explanation of orbital and spin moments, linking to the article on spin for a detailed discussion. A graphic would be very useful in this section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infinitooples (talk • contribs) 22:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A peculiar sentence in this section needs rewrite

The section contains this sentence:

A net spin polarization can be achieved either through creating an equilibrium energy split between spin up and spin down.

The word "either" isn't followed by an "or". Also, I can't tell if the word "split" is part of a noun phrase "equilibrium energy split". Here's a different reading: the noun phrase is only two words "equilibrium energy", and the word "split" begins a clause: "split between spin up and spin down". The sentence needs rewriting. To do so, the editor should have both good knowledge of the subject and strong grammatic skills. Oaklandguy (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Finding more literature on spintronics

moved from article - further reading -- phoebe / (talk to me) 01:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Search Google Scholar for highly cited articles with query: spintronics OR magnetoelectronics OR "spin based electronics"

Spin Caloritronics

I recently learned of spin caloritronics, and I'm not sure if its a subset of spintronics, just a different name for the same field, or something new. Here's an article about it: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/09/150923083429.htm . I'd appreciate some feedback from someone in the know. Emteeoh (talk) 14:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of topological insulators

topological insulator says "The most promising applications of topological insulators are spintronic devices " Can we say how ? - Rod57 (talk) 12:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does this include the magneto-electric transistor

[2] mentions spin but not spintronics. We have no magneto-electric transistor so is the name wrong ? - Rod57 (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation w/ toy that shares name

In 2022 (maybe 2021), the company Upper Story released a toy named Spintronics, to teach kids electronics concepts with mechanical analogues. This is not related to the field of spintronics. 2601:1C2:801:580:3D35:51A7:F246:2002 (talk) 16:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]