Atomic Scale Memory 265
maddugan writes "Technology Research News is reporting that researchers from the University of Wisconsin at Madison have put the theoretical to the test by using single silicon atoms to represent the 1s and 0s of computing. This is equivalent to storing the contents of 7,800 DVDs in one square inch of material."
PREDICTION (Score:2, Funny)
Re:PREDICTION (Score:1)
Re:PREDICTION (Score:5, Insightful)
Steve
Re:PREDICTION (Score:1)
Cool! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Cool! (Score:2)
W00t! (Score:2, Funny)
Whoooohooo!!! (Score:1, Redundant)
New possible high-capacity storage format, huh? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:New possible high-capacity storage format, huh? (Score:2)
It'll be due at 6:02pm, every October 23rd.
Think of the mpeg2 quality. (Score:1)
Re:Think of the mpeg2 quality. (Score:3, Insightful)
Parkinson's Law of Data: [tuxedo.org] Data expands to fill the space available for storage
Asimov's corollary to Parkinson's Law of data: Backlog expands to overfill planned extensions.
I'm sure we'll find a way to use it...
Re:Think of the mpeg2 quality. (Score:2)
MPAA/RIAA (Score:3, Funny)
-S
Re:MPAA/RIAA (Score:2)
Uh-oh. Don't be surprised if i never post again.
cant resist (Score:4, Funny)
"7,800 DVDs ought to be enough for anybody" - loconet 2002
Re:cant resist (Score:2, Funny)
Re:cant resist (Score:2)
You obviously are not thinking about the next, much larger release of Windows, which follows after Windows XP, and will be marketed under the name Windows SUX.
Whoops... (Score:1)
WOW! (Score:1, Offtopic)
Feh. Only ONE bit per atom... (Score:5, Interesting)
Only half joking: Researchers at U.Michigan hope to
store up to 10 bits per atom, by using Rydberg states.
http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/1999/split/pn
>:K
Re:Feh. Only ONE bit per atom... (Score:3, Informative)
I seem to recall that a group used similar techniques to store much more than that (they wanted to encode a small image's bits).
The problem, of course, is that readout tends to be destructive, and you'll have a lot of fun trying to compete on a density basis with the solid-substrate schemes
This just in... (Score:2, Funny)
\documentclass{article}
\title{The P/NP Shit}
\author{airmax31}
\begin{document}
I'm going to.. (Score:3, Funny)
mp3's (Score:1)
or
we're going to need an mp3 style for the dvd audio songs (if that ever catches on)
Re:mp3's (Score:3, Informative)
CD audio is 44,100 samples per second per channel. Each sample is 16 bits and there are 2 channels.
That works out to 1411200 bits per second, or just over 1378 kbps.
Anyway, after working with 96kHz/24bit/multitrack studio equipment CDs sound like crap too. Which is what DVD-A is pretty close to. I think Vorbis streams have support for higher sampling rates, greater bit depth, and >2 channels.
Finally... (Score:1)
Eh? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Eh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Eh? (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, it's a lot of forward thinking and so forth, but I await the day when such things are common place and reasonably priced.
And as for these guys working on this project, more power to them, if they can do it, albeit, I'm not holding my breath for it to happen any time soon.
Re:Eh? (Score:2)
So say per cubic inch, or per cc.
Superdense molecular storage & processing will be great, but we'll still find a way to fill it. :)
--
Re:Eh? (Score:3, Insightful)
This reminds me a bit of what they said to one of my ancestors, when he invented the wheel: "what good is that? What we REALLY need is something to fly, this 'riding' thing is just too slow and way too bumpy. Besides, where do you want to go anyway?"
It's this kind of mindless (an really cheap) new-idea-bashing that really irritates me...
Re:Eh? (Score:2)
For RAM, I think your right. Once you can make a NAND gate and put them together the right way to make RAM, that's the future. However, if they could make a drive based on this technology, there are still many many practical applications.
Re:Eh? (Score:2)
Jebus, cut them some slack. I'll bet you would have said to Michaelangelo:
"Yeah, I guess it is pretty and all, but it is on the ceiling. You have to crane your neck to really see it. What were you thinking?"
Re:Eh? (Score:2)
Re:Eh? (Score:2)
Actually, the ideal shape would be a sphere, with the outer layers consisting of the less important stuff that doesn't need the lower latency of the core.
Since a serious supercomputer (probably running an artificial intelligence) would need to be VERY large physically ...
I don't think you realize how large. :)
Matrioshka Brains [aeiveos.com] are a fascinating inevitability.
--
With that kind of control, there's no need for.... (Score:1)
While I would hesitate to speculate on this kind of technology, if introduced, would mean an end to the way we think about storage and processing.
1.5 nm bitspace? (Score:1)
We lost the file server (Score:5, Funny)
Boss: You mean it crashed?
Techie: No, it's working fine. We just can't find it.
Re: (Score:1)
Found it (Score:1)
Check out the time frame (Score:2, Informative)
Reminds me of... (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, if I could only do it!!!
Re:Reminds me of... (Score:2)
Re:Reminds me of... (Score:2)
Doesn't the Pauli Exclusion Principle [gsu.edu] limit this seriously? After all, in every atom (of a given element), each electron must have certain preoccupied states... The only way to convey information by using ions (i.e. less, or more electrons for the same atom); and keeping electrically imbalanced material is a bit more difficult...
Re:Reminds me of... (Score:2)
We cant really ever tell if the electron is spinning one way or another, the simple act of checking could make it do something else entierly.
Re:Reminds me of... (Score:2)
To fully realize the problem of this in everyday data storage, imagine your Weird Al MP3s transformed into Brittany Spears or N'Sync whenever you listen to them....
No magnets? What about costs? (Score:1)
First off, if this is widely used, won't this be expensive? I realize that these are gold MOLECULES, not bricks, but how much gold would it take to put a cubic inch in every PC in America?
Secondly, I'm guessing that magnets won't mar these disks like they will current magnetic media. Granted, the drive will most likely have some magnetic parts, but perhaps this will make putting a subwoofer next to a computer case a little more safe. I realize that there's other stuff in a PC that can screw up if they come close to magnets, but at least if they screwed up I could take this meda and put it another machine without worrying about it being screwed as well.
Re:No magnets? What about costs? (Score:5, Insightful)
First off, if this is widely used, won't this
be expensive?
A small fraction of a cents in gold per 1000 terabytes. Your computer already has much more gold in it than one of these would require.
I realize that these are gold MOLECULES,
Gold ATOMS.
Re:No magnets? What about costs? (Score:2)
I'm curious; let's do the math:
Atomic weight of Gold: ~197
Price of Gold: $300 per ounce = $10.70 per gram
Atoms per gram: 6.02e+23 / 197 = 3e+21
Price per atom: $10.70/3e+21 = 3.57e-21 cents
Price per Terabyte: 1/357000 cent
This conclusively proves that the vast majority of the $100 you might pay for a 1-terabyte atomic storage unit goes to marketing overhead and sales commissions.
Other Equivalencies (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, you could store the contents of:
149 200GB Fluid Bearing WD HDDs
45850 CDs
116400 256MB Flash Memory Cards
298000 Zip Disks
931300 32MB Memory Sticks
OR!!! 20696000 1.44MB Floppies
No offence guys, but come on. Post meaningful figures.
Its actually 250 trillion bits per square inch.
28.42 TB per square inch.
Now thats impressive.
Re:Other Equivalencies (Score:2)
Slackware?
On ten machines?
Re:LOCs (Score:2)
Probably everybody *but* congress.
(BTW, "LOC" can also stand for Lines of Code)
Re:good link (Score:2)
Re:good link (Score:2)
>>>>>>>
It's in XML of course! Isn't everything nowadays?
Re:good link (Score:2)
Genetic Programming/Algs can evolve some amazing and utterly incomprehesible beasts (like sorting algorithms we can't begin to understand, but that work). It's the process that should be admired, not the ends... IMO.
--
Conclusion (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Quarks? (Score:5, Funny)
Dude, quarks have a hard enough time remembering where they are themselves! Why would you expect them to remember stuff for us as well?
Imagine... (Score:2)
Re:Imagine... (Score:2)
that depends on the surface area of your cubic inch of material. this technique will only work on a surface.
Himpsel (Score:2, Informative)
Atomic scale computers? (Score:2, Interesting)
talks about using a cell matrix which configure their neighbours at run-time,
something like the game-of-life or a more generic turing machine sort of thing.
This has lot of applications, including a highly programmable FPGA which
is very simple to fabricate or even complicate circuiry.
What really attracted my attention was the passage at the end:
>Cell Matrix has been working with nanotechnology groups, hoping to forge a
>new computing substrate from some type of atomic-level fabrication technique.
>Macias was impressed with work at Hewlett-Packard Laboratories in which a
>matrix defined by erbium disilicide wires that address rotaxane molecules
>has been proposed as an atomic-level route to massively dense FPGAs.
Could this new research be an answer to these people ? Probably combining
the two technologies, not only do we have a massive memory-device, but
a massive computing device : Imagine an FPGA (or an ASIC) with a million
times more density!
I wonder... (Score:2)
Why stop there? (Score:2, Interesting)
1 = gold atom
0 = empty space
(diagrams are fun)
To do it, they just covered the whole silicon surface in gold atoms and removed one gold atom for each bit they wanted changed to 0. My first thought was, "Couldn't you repeat the process using other atoms, and increase the amount of information stored in the same space?" Like:
10 = silver atom
01 = copper atom
00 = empty space
11 = gold atom
If so, you could double the amount of info stored in the same space. Not like someone else hasn't already thought this up, I'm sure, but I still thought it was interesting enough to post. Any physics majors care to comment on how far this process could go?
It'll be feasible in the near future. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Why stop there? (Score:2)
1111 (oldstyle) = 1120 pm
1111 (newstyle) = 664 pm
Not half the size, but close enough.
(I used the van der Waal radius [webelements.com] of copper for any physics geeks who want to slap me upside the head and tell me I was wrong.)
soft spot for me (Score:2)
that's it? (Score:2)
sure it's a lot, but this is the limit for some time to come... I guess I was just expecting more from something on atomic scale.
btw, 7,800, DVDs? come on, most people on here are literate, why not post some power of ten of bytes? btw, do I need to start with my explanation of how pointless measuring things in LoCs and HGs is yet, or wait till more of those are posted? (every damn time that storage comes up)
on the other hand, this is a lot of space... guess pretty soon I'll just have discs labeled "Music", "Video", "Software" where the title does in fact mean all music that exists :) just don't tell [RI|MP]AA (actually, can we just call the RiMpa from now on? kind of has a nice ring to it)
Re:that's it? (Score:2)
so it might not be the limit.
Re:that's it? (Score:3, Interesting)
The actual genetic code is not much at all - roughly 3 billion base-pairs, considering you only need two bits for a basepair, you can fit the whole thing on a CD. When they say that things are "redundant" or "legacy" what they really mean is that they have no idea what is going on - contrary to what some people will have you believe, very little (comparitevly) is known about the genome.
I'd be interested in knowing approximately how much actual information is functional in numerical terms. If one knew that, one could say exactly how much data it takes to create a human being.
Like I said, the actual genetic code is very small (~750 MB), the next level of complexity is annotation on some of its function and variation (essential to any sort of understanding of what it does) and this amount of data isn't a set size, we (a small biotech) have roundabout a terabyte of it, Celera has 100TB
The real complexity with humans starts around the protein stage, and proteomics is far younger than genomics. Once we start studying/simulating biological processes on the cell-wide scale, then we'll get into the astronomical numbers for storage and computing power, which will see use for "atomic scale" technologies.
Anyway, with humans it's not really the number of bits packed into small spaces that's impressive, it's the amount of information packed into those bits.
karma whoring (Score:5, Interesting)
You can read the transcipt [zyvex.com] of the speech from when he made that prediction.
Feynman worked on developing the atomic bomb [st-and.ac.uk], he won a nobel [nobel.se] in physics and is known as much for his scientific research as for his story telling [wwnorton.com].
Am I the only one who understands the implications (Score:4, Funny)
I have no words.
Re:Am I the only one who understands the implicati (Score:2)
Re:Am I the only one who understands the implicati (Score:2)
- After you've seen a pre-historic drawing of a penis in a cave wall, you've seen them all.
Re:Am I the only one who understands the implicati (Score:2)
This just in... ..... gathering PORN!"
Thousands of geeks, after a quick smile and "woo hoo", all paused in silent awe realizing that this would free up about 3 hours a day, which could be used for
Oh, wait.
What do we do now?
Re:Am I the only one who understands the implicati (Score:2)
Re:Am I the only one who understands the implicati (Score:2)
Re:Am I the only one who understands the implicati (Score:2)
Re:Am I the only one who understands the implicati (Score:2)
Theoretical density issues (Score:4, Interesting)
When DVDs are burned and read, you don't simply read raw data off. The information is, of course, encoded. The DVD (and CD for that matter) specification says to use Reed-Solmon encoding. Saving the long math, RS encoding is about the most advanced error-correcting scheme that can be implemented in low-cost hardware today. By encoding data this way, your DVD (or CD) can become fairly scratched, but still play. RS protects against multiple-point errors. However, there is a price to pay - for every ~33k byte block on a DVD, almost 5K bytes are used in the parity checks for the DVD. See this file for more gritty details about DVDs [disctronics.co.uk]. This means your 4.7GB DVD really holds about 5.48 GB of raw data.
Now, why is this relevant? Harddrives use their own error correcting schemes too. Manufacturers have the luxury of creating their own encoding systems since they're the ones that provide the read/write mechanisms. You can't pull the platter out of one harddrive and stick it in another. Hard drives typically use CRC (cyclic redundancy check) encoding schemes. I know you have all gotten CRC errors on a floppy way back when - that's what it stands for. Anyway, CRC is much less efficent when you compare the protected data to parity information ratios. While I wasn't able to pull the actual numbers from the Internet or my old math books, you can find a discussion and sample math here [ciphersbyritter.com].
When you boil it down and relate all this information to our magical harddrive, the maximum usable density of the data would hover between 85%, or 6630 DVDs/in^2, to 60%, a measly 4680 DVDs/in^2, of the listed capacity. This is all assuming that the ideal lab conditions are maintained for a consumer level product.
As always, beware what the numbers tell you. However, if this can fly, then it would be an awesome step forward. Once you get Windows 2010 installed, you might even have a few Gig to play around with!
Re: Nothing new (Score:2)
Re:Theoretical density issues (Score:2)
I don't think they quote the 4.7G as the RAW capacity of the disks, but the formatted capacity.
Tolerances (Score:2)
Considering I don't store much money in my bank account, I sure as hell would risk my account being drained from $10 -> $0 along with the equal risk that its value will go from $10 -> 3.3E23 dollars. :)
It's sure as hell better than to use a gigantic "Laser" to get lots of money.
Great ... when do we get to use it? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Great ... when do we get to use it? (Score:2)
Magnetic disk storage hasn't gone away because the researchers have consistently beat Moore's Law: magnetic storage has been improving faster than silicon, just killing every proposed competitor. But these guys get no publicity because magnetic disks, for some reason, are seen as boring. In fact, IBM just sold off the lab with the world's leading magnetic disk storage researchers to Hitachi.
Some day we'll run into the superparamagnetic limit and run out of tricks for working around it [extremetech.com], but there still appear to be a few more generations worth of gas in magnetic disk storage.
Data Recovery (Score:2)
well... (Score:2)
-- haaz, who is pretty sure he'll never come up with anything resembling this. (and lives in Madison.)
NOBODY MOVE !!! (Score:2)
seen this before (Score:2, Interesting)
I believe it when I see it! (Score:2)
Must keep 100 feet away from microwave ovens (Score:2)
or will they be incased in lead or something?
Storage size versus device size? (Score:2, Funny)
So now I'll.. (Score:2)
Actually, these miniturizations reminds me of a quote from a Scott Adams book (creator of Dilbert) (VERY MUCH PARAPHRASED SINCE I DON'T HAVE THE BOOK).
"I see computers getting smaller and smaller until one day someone phones the president and tell him that the entire dept. of defence computer system is gone because someone sneezed and left a window open."
Race on! (Score:2)
Their announcement will tell us that instead of that "old-fasioned moving of atoms" to represent 1s and 0s, the new technique changes the electron (or proton) count of an atom to represent up to one full byte of information in the same space.
Hmm.... what elements are stable enough at that many charge levels to do such a thing?
I do find it interesting that the access speeds and density of new memory technologies seem to be inversly proportional (and then some). We could probably write to a whole room full of conventional memory in the time it would take to full up a few bytes of this room-sized new memory.
Re:MacOSX = Darwin = Communism and Atheism (Score:1)
Re:useful units (Score:4, Funny)
Re:useful units (Score:2)
How many furlongs in a pennyweight again?
Nuts, I guess the original poster should have linked to a conversion site, huh?
Re:Neutrinos (Score:2, Insightful)
neutrinos are "little neutral things". they can travel through cubic light-years of *lead* before the probability of an interaction becomes close to one.
i don't think that you need to worry about the neutrinos.
(besides, how often have neutrinos wiped out the contents of your regular harddrive? not even i have had that sort of problem)
Re:atomic scale memory (Score:2)
Any TRUE audiophile would not be listening to digital audio, but instead would use high quality analog sources.