Talk:Silicon photonics

Redirect

I think this should redirect to Photonic computing instead of Photonics. What do you think? Waldir ^talk 01:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Note: the above comment is obsolete now, since this is not a redirect anymore, but an article on its own instead. --Waldir ^talk 16:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Improvement of article

I've noticed that the article has only been given a "C" grade, which is not particularly good. What are the major shortcomings? I am a physicist, rather than an engineer, and so the article is probably biased towards the physics of light in silicon, rather than actually making devices. Is this the primary fault, or are there other problems? — Hyperdeath^(Talk) 12:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

First of, note that "C" is not really that bad a score for an article on its first go. (Most article I review, while patrolling the unassessed physics articles end up as "start" or "stub"). So, there is no reason to be disappointed. This is a very good referenced article with a lot of the technical details, so far so good. I guess my main reason for keeping it at "C" for now is that it doesn't really feel complete.

The main thing I'm missing is the "state of the" art: How far away are we from (commercial) practical applications? What are the obstacles? In the same light I'm missing a discussion of the history of the subject: When where these materials first studied? and by whom? What were major breakthroughs in the field?

Also, (but is more of a concern if you want to bring the article up to GA of FA) the article contains a lot of unexplained technical jargon making it hard to read for lay people. Consider expanding a little on the concepts used. For example, you explain a lot about the physical requirements for "optical interconnects" and how to construct one, but it would help many readers if you explain what an "optical interconnect" is in one or two sentences. It will provide a better context as to appreciate why these would result in faster computers.

Finally, I would like to again say "good job" I was hesitating between "b" or "c" for this article, and it is indeed very close to b-class. Note that there is no formal review process for these classes (unlike GA or FA) so feel free, if you feel that the above comments have been dealt with, to increase the rating yourself. (but take a look at WP:BCLASS first, it is also a good place to look for hints to what to improve on. Summerizing points 1,3,4 are OK, but 2,5 and 6 could use some work.) If you need any more help please don't hesitate to ask. (TimothyRias (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for the information. — Hyperdeath^(Talk) 16:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with TimothyRias on the C-class. From a quick read, the physics part seems to be mostly covered but it could be made more accessible. I'm not saying Aunt Jenny should be able to understand this, but this is within the grasps of 3rd or 4th years physics undergrads if we explain things like what "single-mode propagation" is, and what exactly is the "problem modal dispersion" and why we should care about it. The "history" of silicon photonics is missing, aka what were the key moments, who did what, etc... Images to illustrates things would go a long way too. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Fiber Optics & Silicon photonics

(Discussion moved from User talk:Ne0Freedom)

Fiber optics doesn't use silicon as an optical medium. The articles you moved to Category:Silicon Photonics didn't belong there, except for Silicon photonics itself. I removed the articles that didn't belong, and then emptied the category as it doesn't appear to be viable. It will be deleted eventually.--Srleffler (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Then you do NOT know the 1st thing about Fiber optics !!! Do read up on Optical fiber and Silicon dioxide, to increase your knowledge :) --Ne0 (talk) 05:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I thought that might be where you were confused. Silica (silicon dioxide) is not silicon. Silicon photonics uses silicon as a medium, not silicon dioxide.--Srleffler (talk) 01:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

to quote some articles...

Silicon photonics research began in the late 1980s and has been ongoing ever since. The technology uses lasers to transfer data into light pulses. A multiplexer combines the pulses into a single signal which travels across a optic fiber to a silicon receiver where de-multiplexers divide the signal back into separate channels.

-http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/silicon-photonics

Silicon photonics offers the possibility of low-cost mass-producible photonic systems complete with integrated electronics using well-established CMOS wafer-processing techniques. ...Numerous processes have been proposed to package optical fibers, integrated sources and electronics and manage thermal effects. However, these processes cannot be used unless they can be implemented in a high-volume manufacturing environment, using automated packaging equipment based on fast and low-cost assembly techniques.

-http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2040-8978/18/7/073003/meta

Silicon photonics uses the Silicon molecule to transmit/receive/process light. Various combinations of the molecule is researched for maximum effect, and such a combination with Oxygen creates Silicon Dioxide. --Ne0 (talk) 04:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The first of those articles is not a reliable source, and is not very well written. It doesn't support your point, although due to the poor writing I can see how you misunderstood it. The key line is this: "The concept involves combining laser and silicon technology on the same chip." That's the piece of this technology that is "silicon photonics", not the transmission of the resulting signals through optical fiber.

Similarly with the second article. The text you've quoted does not support your point. It's not the optical fiber that is the "silicon photonic" element here.

Silicon dioxide is not silicon for the same reason that water is not oxygen. They are different materials. Technologies based on silicon dioxide are not "silicon photonics". --Srleffler (talk) 04:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I have given my sources, will give more if needed. Please give your source for saying "silicon dioxide is not used in silicon photonics" --Ne0 (talk) 07:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not asserting that silicon dioxide is not used in silicon photonics. I'm asserting that it is incorrect to categorize fiber optics under Category:Silicon photonics. Per WP:CATDEF, categorization needs to be based on defining characteristics of the topic, and also categorization must be verifiable. Fiber optic components are certainly used in systems along with silicon photonics elements. Fiber optics are not by definition silicon photonics devices however. Neither of your sources asserts that they are.

Per WP:V, I can provide sources that establish that fiber optics is a branch of Optics: [1][2][3]. Fiber optics is therefore verifiably categorizable under Category:Optics. I do not believe that you can provide any reliable sources that establish that fiber optics is a type of "silicon photonic" technology. The sources you have cited do not do so.--Srleffler (talk) 01:43, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

For definition of Silicon Photonics, see my previous sources[4][5]. Also, Optical fiber was developed through Silicon Photonics research...

"The Silicon Photonics Group at the University of Surrey was formed by Professor Graham T. Reed in 1989. ...Over the last 20 years, the group has made a significant contribution in the field of silicon photonics most notably in waveguides, optical modulators, grating couplers, optical filters and switches."

-http://personal.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/M.Nedeljkovic/photonics/Welcome.html --Ne0 (talk) 05:17, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

The phrase you highlighted there is "optical filters", not "optical fibers". Optical fibers are not mentioned on that page, and the development of optical fiber for communications long predates the existence of that research group.

The whatis.com article is not a reliable source, and does not claim that optical fiber is a silicon photonic technology—that's something that you are reading into it. The source is very poorly written, and fails to adequately define what silicon photonics is. It looks like the author read some article about the application of silicon photonic technology but didn't really understand it, and wrote the whatis article based on her flawed understanding. If this was the first thing you read about the subject, it would explain why your understanding of it is so skewed.

The IoP article similarly does not claim anywhere that optical fiber is a silicon photonic technology. Optical fiber and silicon photonic devices are used together. That doesn't somehow make optical fiber itself "silicon photonic".

You need to actually read and comprehend material to learn anything. Doing a google search for anything that contains the words "silicon photonic" and "optical fiber" is not going to get you anywhere.--Srleffler (talk) 06:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Srleffler dropped a notice on the Fiber-optic communication talk page that this discussion might benefit from a third opinion. I don't really have much to add, but Srleffler has done a good job at trying to clear this up, and I'm in complete agreement with his actions so far. Silicon photonics is very specific type of optic communication (communication through silicon). Fiber optic communication is also a type of optic communication (communication across fibers). Fiber optic communication is not a type of silicon photonics because we don't make optical fibers out of silicon. Thanks! johnpseudo 21:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)