Slashdot Mirror


Atomic Scale Memory

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."

251 comments

  1. PREDICTION by Maddog_Delphi97 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I predict 20 posts joking about how this memory will improve the performance of the next version of Windows, or being just barely enough for the next version of Windows.

    1. Re:PREDICTION by skidgetron · · Score: 1

      Maybe with this new memory, I'll be able to run windows.....

    2. Re:PREDICTION by Stephen+VanDahm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A better prediction would be that there will soon be 20 posts about how this new technology will allow folks to enlarge their pr0n collections by a factor of 10,000. I'll bet they're rolling in even as I type.

      Steve

    3. Re:PREDICTION by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right you are.

      Give that man a psychic hotline!

    4. Re:PREDICTION by jasonditz · · Score: 1

      How about: "Oh great, another thing my BIOS won't let me boot off of."

    5. Re:PREDICTION by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crap, I had a joke about why anybody would need more than 70 Meg but It's not that funny now

  2. Cool! by FyRE666 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'll only need 5 drawers for my Pr0n collection now!

    1. Re:Cool! by garcia · · Score: 0, Troll

      Now this is just too weird...

      Sad thing is, it's true, and it's funny!

    2. Re:Cool! by Scaba · · Score: 2

      You keep your pr0n in your drawers? Doesn't it get all sweaty & messy in there?

    3. Re:Cool! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you noticed, the prediction came AFTER the pron joke. More than like 2 minutes after, too.

    4. Re:Cool! by jx100 · · Score: 1

      well, it's not like it wouldn't get sweaty and messy anyway..

  3. W00t! by Anomolous+Cow+Herd · · Score: 2, Funny

    Gives a whole new meaning to the term "atomic transactions"!

    --

    "I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." - George Bush
    1. Re:W00t! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      my sincerest apologies. I meant this for the post below yours, but I apparently lack the basic motor skills requires to click on the appropriate link.

      I don't want you to die, you're rather clever. Goodbye.

  4. Whoooohooo!!! by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Now imagine all that pr0n!!!

  5. MPAA to propose law banning atoms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you realize how much someone can pirate with a handful of atoms?! Congress must put an end to this before it catches on and ruins civilization.

  6. 7,800 DVDs in one square inch of material? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WHOA...

  7. But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But will it be legal under the DMCA?

    1. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, do you even know what the dmca DOES? Are you really that fucking stupid, or are you trying on your karma whore boots?

      I want you to die. thanks.

  8. New possible high-capacity storage format, huh? by Erpo · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wonder how long it'll be before the *AA asks for a tax on atoms "to offset the costs of piracy".

    1. Re:New possible high-capacity storage format, huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Silicon atoms no less. Something about grains of sand says that beachfront property might get expensive...

    2. Re:New possible high-capacity storage format, huh? by zCyl · · Score: 2

      I wonder how long it'll be before the *AA asks for a tax on atoms

      It'll be due at 6:02pm, every October 23rd.

  9. Think of the mpeg2 quality. by legomad · · Score: 1

    Movies could be 1 Terabyte in size.

    1. Re:Think of the mpeg2 quality. by Drishmung · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Parkinson's Law: Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion

      Parkinson's Law of Data: 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...

      --
      Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
    2. Re:Think of the mpeg2 quality. by Dirtside · · Score: 2

      Similarly, Voidmaster's law: Bandwidth expands to fit the waste available. :)

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
  10. MPAA/RIAA by sdo1 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Oh man are those guys gonna be pissed.

    -S

    --
    --- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
    1. Re:MPAA/RIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Considering this technology is probably meant for "Quantumn Computing" and well they hardly have been able to make a tranistor equivilent... I somehow doubt that they actually give a rats ass, this isn't even technology you will even read about in the foreseeable future. Thus I second the wish for you to die.

    2. Re:MPAA/RIAA by carambola5 · · Score: 2

      hey, i live in madis....hmmm, bright flash of light. looks like its daytime. and now it's gone. wonder what that was? didn't hear anything... yet.

      Uh-oh. Don't be surprised if i never post again.

      --
      IWARS.
      People, in general, disappoint me. Politicians even more so.
    3. Re:MPAA/RIAA by jshare · · Score: 1

      Duh.

      Sam and Max.

      Fuck, I googled for that shit.

  11. cant resist by loconet · · Score: 4, Funny


    "7,800 DVDs ought to be enough for anybody" - loconet 2002

    --
    [alk]
    1. Re:cant resist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah... Considering that I am planning to live till the age of 100, that comes out to about 1 movie every day assuming average 3 viewings (thats generous considering the quality now-a-days, though about 1000 viewings of LOTR should compensate). Still hardly sufficient, I should say !!!

    2. Re:cant resist by pointandlaff · · Score: 2, Funny

      you obviously have no concept of what constitutes a "thorough" collection of porn . . . .

    3. Re:cant resist by DickBreath · · Score: 2

      7,800 DVDs ought to be enough for anybody" - Ioconet 2002.

      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.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  12. Stop IP Piracy!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is equivalent to storing the contents of 7,800 DVDs in one square inch of material.

    Wait till the MPAA hears about this! Expect new laws banning possession of silicon crystals as a copyright circumvention device.

  13. Whoops... by wikkiewikkie · · Score: 1

    Just imagine if you scratched it like a DVD or CD, you could wipe out an entire movie with just a little one.

    1. Re:Whoops... by kasperd · · Score: 1

      Just imagine if you scratched it

      The answer to that problem is a clever redundant coding of the data. I'd prefer something better than the CDs of today. Only problem is the amount of data you need to read and process to get access to your data.

      One solution would be using a 16bit Reed-Solomon encoding. If we want at least a factor three in redundancy we can store every 42KB sector in 1Mbit. Those bits should then be spread over the entire media to prevent loosing too many of them due to a single scratch.

      If they cannot do 16bit Reed-Solomon efficiently enough in hardware, another option would be 2D or 3D 8bit Reed-Solomon encoding. Currently CD's are using a 2D 8bit Reed-solomon encoding with only 25% of the capacity being used for redundancy.

      --

      Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
    2. Re:Whoops... by godemon · · Score: 1

      If the medium was that sensitive, they would probably only use it in something that is protected or encased, like a hard drive..

      --


      Why is a mouse that spins?
    3. Re:Whoops... by Destoo · · Score: 1

      But don't worry, someone WILL find a solution on how to open that casing to replace it by a sexy plexiglass casing so you can actually see the atoms being shuffled around.
      It will probably involve a bathroom.

      --
      Nouvelles de jeux et technologies en français. TC
  14. WOW! by TGK · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Imagine a Beowol^H^H^H^H^H^H.... oh wait... never mind.

    --
    Killfile(TGK)
    No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
  15. Feh. Only ONE bit per atom... by Mad+Bad+Rabbit · · 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/pnu 42 9-2.htm

    >:K

    --
    >;k
    1. Re:Feh. Only ONE bit per atom... by airmax31 · · Score: 1

      thats really great, I hope to solve the riemans hypothesis and the p/np shit tonight

    2. Re:Feh. Only ONE bit per atom... by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 3, Informative

      Only half joking: Researchers at U.Michigan hope to store up to 10 bits per atom, by using Rydberg states.

      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 :).

    3. Re:Feh. Only ONE bit per atom... by fluffy666 · · Score: 1

      Well, if you packed protons and neutrons together and used proton=1, neutron=0, you could get about 6 x 10^26 bits in a square inch. Not the puny 2.5x10^11 that they claim..

      1.5x10^19 DVDs. Hmmm.

    4. Re:Feh. Only ONE bit per atom... by IpalindromeI · · Score: 1

      The problem is you'd need an atom smasher/repairer to change a 0 to 1 or vice versa.

      "Son, what's going on in your CD drive? It's glowing funny."
      "Oh just some nuclear fission and fusion. Try not to touch it, I don't want to blow up the city."

      --

      --
      Promoting critical thinking since 1994.
    5. Re:Feh. Only ONE bit per atom... by SpaceJunkie · · Score: 1

      Surely you make a dram construct - that reads and then refreshes...

      --
      OrionRobots.co.uk - Robots From sol
    6. Re:Feh. Only ONE bit per atom... by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see a system that stores enough information per atom to represent 2 atoms internally. Who's with me?

  16. Old news. by Mornelithe · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Geeze. I've had this on my Bitboys video card for years now. With this and the Xtreme Bandwith Architecture, it'll easily be the most powerful video card for years to come! Who needs nVidia and ATi, eh?

    --

    I've come for the woman, and your head.

    1. Re:Old news. by beerits · · Score: 1

      How many FPS do you get playing Duke Nukem Forever?

    2. Re:Old news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and throw in a Hyperchip router... Bwahahahahahaa!!!!

      Thank you, thank you, I'm here all week.

  17. I'm going to.. by Frank+of+Earth · · Score: 3, Funny

    .. mirror Kaaza just in case it goes offline.

  18. mp3's by skydude_20 · · Score: 1

    So much for needing mp3's, we could just keep everything ripped at the 320 kbps wav with room to spare

    or

    we're going to need an mp3 style for the dvd audio songs (if that ever catches on)

    --
    Jesus saves souls and redeems them for valuable cash prizes
    1. Re:mp3's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      320kbps wav? That wouldn't sound so hot. CD quality audio is 172 kilobytes (or kebibytes if you're an idiot) per second. Although you should use flac since you'll store roughly twice as much audio, losslessly, in the same space.

    2. Re:mp3's by Neon+Spiral+Injector · · Score: 3, Informative

      Um, a 320 kilobits per second .wav would sound like crap.

      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.

  19. Finally... by EvilCabbage · · Score: 1

    More storage space than I know what to do with, for this week at least.

  20. Eh? by ShooterNeo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This isn't actually very useful : what we want is atomic scale logic gates, not data storage. In fact I'd venture to say that this technology is NOT what we will be using in the future for extremely dense memory. Why? Because its 2 dimensional and requires an independent readout head (that is MECHANICAL). Making it work anywhere but a vacuum may be impossible. (though that is not a real problem : making a disk drive that has an internal vacuum is quite feasible) A solution that is thousands, even millions of times faster would be a system that reads itself : i.e. a 3 dimensional array of logic gates to form a molecular version of ram. In addition, you could cram far more bits per gram of material used for the media. (I can't say per square inch because that would be misleading) In addition, storage capacity is not what our computers need more of : its performance (especially in accessing all those gigs of storage).

    1. Re:Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hmmm.. 3-d ey.. looks like someone's been watching Contact..

    2. Re:Eh? by intermodal · · Score: 1

      the big problem with that would be making a bus that could handle it. And a cable. I don't think IDE is up to the challenge...

      --
      In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    3. Re:Eh? by sconeu · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Atomic scale \b{is} essentially a vacuum. It's the same size as or smaller than any potential nasty air molecules!

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    4. Re:Eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It'd still be a good idea to put it in a vaccuum, just to keep the other molecules from hitting the surface and messing with the data.

      that and its cool to type vaccuum. vaccuum, vaccuum, vaccuum.

    5. Re:Eh? by Shimmer · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      It might be cool to type "vaccuum", but the word you're trying to use is spelled "vacuum".

      -- Brian

      --
      The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
    6. Re:Eh? by athlon02 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You forget, we don't just need more performance, we need smaller memory... If these people could make a type of RAM or non-volatile memory from this stuff then you could store your entire DVD collection, your entire CD collection, 1000's of photos from a 2 or 3Mp digital camera, tons of setup files for commonly used apps you have, etc, etc. all on a postage stamp sized media and still have plenty of room left over. Personally, I've been waiting for something like that for a LONG time. I mean, combine something like that with a PDA, cell phone, and firewire camera all at once, and that'd be quite an interesting device, that would be as small as the Sony Clie's I've seen, but rival the space of my desktop machine with an 80GB Seagate Barracuda IV, possibly with better transfer speeds too!!

      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.

    7. Re:Eh? by Saeger · · Score: 2
      I can't say per square inch because that would be misleading

      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. :)

      ...reminds me of some short story where the geeks of the future had really fat bellies - not full of fat, but of their jelly-like personal storage matter.

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    8. Re:Eh? by ShooterNeo · · Score: 2

      Why a comm interface at all? That would just slow things down. An ideal computer would be one single cube (rather than chip, to signify its 3 dimensional). Memory and processing elements would all be part of the same mass of interconnects. Due to manufacturing reasons, a large computer would need to be a cluster of these cubes, and of course you'd need some dedicated to storage of information that doesn't change often. Since a serious supercomputer (probably running an artificial intelligence) would need to be VERY large physically, you'd use fiber to interconnect all the individual nodes. Finally, since performance is king the computing elements would have to be cooled with liquid helium, to maintain their stability against the tremendous heat being produced by all the calculations occuring (well, not the calculations...the interactions required : specifically, in throwing information away since computing is an irreversible process) No, I don't think most private individuals would own these...instead, you'd access them by a fiber connection to your house and would receive a timeslice of the cpu power for whatever you are running. With fiber, obviously the latency would be negligible.

    9. Re:Eh? by jo-do-cus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This isn't actually very useful : what we want is atomic scale logic gates, not data storage.

      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...

    10. Re:Eh? by Saeger · · Score: 2
      An ideal computer would be one single cube

      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 are a fascinating inevitability.

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    11. Re:Eh? by ArthurDent · · Score: 2

      I wasn't imagining this as RAM, but ROM. Just from a quick calcuation (not trying to be amazingly accurate), I was able to determine that a CD or DVD sized disk could hold about 708 TB! Imagine being able to back up that much data on such a small area! Who cares if it has to be in a vacuum. That's a boatload of data storage.

      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.

    12. Re:Eh? by godemon · · Score: 1

      What would I do with a postage stamp size media? It would end up in a crack somewhere, or stuck to the bottom of someone's shoes.

      --


      Why is a mouse that spins?
    13. Re:Eh? by gosand · · Score: 2
      This isn't actually very useful : what we want is atomic scale logic gates, not data storage.

      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?"

      --

      My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

    14. Re:Eh? by athlon02 · · Score: 1

      not if it was soldered on a PCB in your PDA or what not. And even if it was standalone, there's plenty of places to store it without losing it.

    15. Re:Eh? by Hudjakov · · Score: 0

      Imagine 4D memory cube. You can overwrite the hologram as many times as you want, but you'll have to make a time travel to read the memory.

    16. Re:Eh? by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      WELL, I was thinking about an AI that was ONLY a 1000 or so times smarter than we are. Maybe a million. Not some all knowing, omnipotent cosmos spanning intelligence who answers every question with 42. Yeah, yeah, a sphere is better. Doh. Was just thinking that all the memory and processing elements needed to be in close proximity. Course, it would be even faster if the computer could reconfigure itself on the fly to accelerate calculations (sort of how our brains can build new connections between neurons when needed).

    17. Re:Eh? by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      "That's a boatload of data storage. I'll never run out" Rest assured, by the time you can hold one of these disks in its vaccuum sealed case, you'll be thinking about buying a second one because the one you have just isn't big enough.

  21. With that kind of control, there's no need for.... by Bonker · · Score: 1

    RAM, Harddrives, or even many processors.

    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.

    --
    The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
  22. 1.5 nm bitspace? by jasonditz · · Score: 1

    What are we supposed to read this thing with anyhow, X-Rays?

    1. Re:1.5 nm bitspace? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, in all probability (no pun intended), i/o operations probably would occur via properly tuned electromagnetic radiation. The article states they are currently using an SEM and silicon on gold. There may well be more optimal solutions using other materials that would be read/write with various areas of the electromagnetic spectrum depending on the energy states of the materials chosen. So X-rays may be a possibility, just as much as IR, UV, etc.

    2. Re:1.5 nm bitspace? by jasonditz · · Score: 1
      If size is what we're going for here I don't see how IR radiation (or UV for that matter) is going to work.

      If you propagate an IR photon at bit[x] its likely to hit bit[x+1] or some other nearby bit: its wavelength is too large.

      Hard X-Rays or some kind of Gamma Radiation are going to be needed here it seems to me. But then this thing is going to be an energy hog, and you'll probably also need to wear a radiation ring if you sit too close.

  23. Auto Arranging Silicon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder how much control they have over the directions that the tracks take? . At the moment how wide are the Tracks on a CPU (couple of hunderd?) If it were possible to control the direction that the tracks take you possibly have a new way of creating the interconnects (albeit slowly).
    Just a thought

  24. We lost the file server by SQL+Error · · Score: 5, Funny

    Techie: Um, we've lost the corporate file server.
    Boss: You mean it crashed?
    Techie: No, it's working fine. We just can't find it.

    1. Re:We lost the file server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      We actually did lose a server (well, a workstation acting as a server) where I work. We had an ultra 10 that had been running longer than anyone at the company had been working there, and no-one knew where it was. Eventually, we found it underneath a console when the computer center moved to a different building.

  25. using slave labor by yuri82 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    "It is actually quite simple, and my graduate students make the surfaces routinely now," he said.

    yeah, i bet its very simple, all he has to do is order them to do it! Thats as simple as it used to be to get beer before my wife left me:
    hey bitch, grab me a brew!

    --
    Who is this Karma guy and why is he bad ??
  26. Check out the time frame by Liquidity · · Score: 2, Informative

    At the bottom of the story, a key factoid: "Timeline: > 20 years" Holographic memory at 1 TB/cc will give this technique a run for its money on density and will probably be ready first.

  27. Re:MacOSX = Darwin = Communism and Atheism by kroy2002 · · Score: 1

    Get a life!

  28. Reminds me of... by teetam · · Score: 3, Interesting
    a juvenile idea/dream I had when I was a small kid to use the electron's spin (+half or -half) to store the same binary information. A single atom could store a lot more bits this way.

    Now, if I could only do it!!!

    --
    All your favorite sites in one place!
    1. Re:Reminds me of... by Mt._Honkey · · Score: 2

      Um, that's what others are trying to do. They're called qbits (quantum bits).

      --

      Don't Bogart the fish sticks
    2. Re:Reminds me of... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a juvenile idea/dream I had when I was a small kid to use the electron's spin (+half or -half) to store the same binary information. A single atom could store a lot more bits this way.

      how exactly would you find the specific electron that you are looking for in an atom? i mean, for example, say you were using silicon with 14 electrons. which one is which? say 4 are + and 10 are -. how would you know the difference between ++++---------- and -----++++----- ?

      i guess you could use valence levels to help out, but there's only so much you can do with that too

    3. Re:Reminds me of... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      electrons can not hold positive charges

    4. Re:Reminds me of... by Chexum · · Score: 2
      ...use the electron's spin (+half or -half) to store the same ... information

      Doesn't the Pauli Exclusion Principle 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...

      --
      "Ten years from now, they could do it in a few seconds." -- The Racketeer of the Hellfire Club, 1993, Phrack 42
    5. Re:Reminds me of... by Nathanbp · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that most likely would not work b/c of the Pauli Exclusion priniciple. The spin of electrons in atoms is strictly limited. Qubits are for quantum computers btw, not for quantum RAM.

    6. Re:Reminds me of... by Noofus · · Score: 2

      Not to metion Heisenburg's Uncertanty Principle.

      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.

    7. Re:Reminds me of... by John+Courtland · · Score: 1

      Not that I know too much about it, but isn't IBM finding ways around that with their teleportation project?
      Using entangled pairs to read the information instead of examining the actual information itself, keeps the original intact, I think. I'd love a good explanation if I'm wrong.

      --
      Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
    8. Re:Reminds me of... by Dannon · · Score: 2

      The simple act of checking could make it do something else entierly.

      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....

      --
      Good judgment comes from experience.
      Experience comes from bad judgment.
  29. No magnets? What about costs? by portege00 · · Score: 1

    From what I gather in this article, this method uses the abscence or existance of gold molecules on a silicon surface to mimic the "1" and "0" of binary.

    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.

    --
    Trolls make great pets. Adopt one today!
    1. Re:No magnets? What about costs? by John+Hasler · · 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.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    2. Re:No magnets? What about costs? by mmca · · Score: 1



      >>I realize that these are gold MOLECULES,

      >Gold ATOMS.

      And they are different how?

    3. Re:No magnets? What about costs? by Valar · · Score: 1

      The atom is one cohesive unit of an element. It consists of a neucleas (made of neutrons and protons) and electrons orbiting around. A molecule is MADE of atoms that are bonded together.

    4. Re:No magnets? What about costs? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2
      A small fraction of a cents in gold per 1000 terabytes.

      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.

    5. Re:No magnets? What about costs? by Semi-Psychic+Nathan · · Score: 1
      Molecules are not really relevant to gold. Some elements and compounds form molecules, and some only form crystals. Your statement is correct; however, "gold atoms" is in fact more accurate in this case.

      I won't bother going into the details of orbits vs. orbitals, but let it suffice to say that electrons don't orbit.

      --
      I have nothing to allude to, and I am alluding to it.
    6. Re:No magnets? What about costs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      Har har. Yes, of course, because as we all know research and manufacturing are completely free and are nothing more than the current market value of the materials used.

    7. Re:No magnets? What about costs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you look for the same kind of molecules that you get from oxygen and such, one big chunk of gold (ie, big enough to hold) would be a single molecule. (technically, it's not a molecule, but roughly equivalent) Metals are like that, that's where many of their properties come from.

    8. Re:No magnets? What about costs? by teektee · · Score: 1

      Some CD-Rs use a thin layer of gold (instead of dye) to store data.

    9. Re:No magnets? What about costs? by Valar · · Score: 1

      well...it is more like a shell according to modern chemistry texts. I'm more of a newton-einstien man...bohr is a bore :)

    10. Re:No magnets? What about costs? by Semi-Psychic+Nathan · · Score: 1

      And if you want to be really picky, the "shell" is just drawn for ease of perception at the 90% boundary. The orbital itself is closer to a blur mostly (90%) within the shell. Or are you talking about the various orbital groups that electrons can occupy at different energy levels as "shells"? If it's something you're interested in, there are many good websites dedicated to orbital vizualization.

      --
      I have nothing to allude to, and I am alluding to it.
  30. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  31. Other Equivalencies by jstockdale · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...equivalent to storing the contents of 7,800 DVDs...

    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.

    --
    **AA: a bunch of mindless jerks who'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes
    1. Re:Other Equivalencies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "OR!!! 20696000 1.44MB Floppies"

      Imagine being being told to do that by your boss.

    2. Re:Other Equivalencies by Jonny+290 · · Score: 2

      Ever installed Word off of floppies?

      Slackware?

      On ten machines?

      --
      Hey Taco! Looks like you're using the "infinite monkeys and typewriters" scheme to generate Ask Slashdots again...
    3. Re:Other Equivalencies by mrbuttle · · Score: 1

      Hey, come on, you forgot the most important comparison. With this as a rough guide, you would need ~106 square inches to store the Library of Congress.

    4. Re:Other Equivalencies by mrbuttle · · Score: 1

      Sorry, forgot the link

    5. Re:Other Equivalencies by zeitoun · · Score: 1

      ...No offence guys, but come on. Post meaningful figures...

      No offense guys, but have you ever heard of the metric system.

      28.42 / 6.5 = 4.37 TB per square centimeter

      Now, that's impressive and meaningfull to anybody in the world.

    6. Re:Other Equivalencies by GlassHeart · · Score: 1

      But how many times bigger than Texas is that?

    7. Re:Other Equivalencies by pyrrho · · Score: 1

      this means nothing to me....

      tell me how many libraries of congress it can hold.

      --

      -pyrrho

    8. Re:Other Equivalencies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the metric system has been disproven in the US.

  32. Stop dumbing it down... by danny256 · · Score: 1

    This is equivalent to storing the contents of 7,800 DVDs in one square inch of material
    What are you doing? We're the slashdot crowd! If you mean 46.8 Terabytes, don't say 7800 DVDs.

    1. Re:Stop dumbing it down... by MjDascombe · · Score: 1

      Slashdot often quote the article. Read the article, and you might find out.

  33. Quarks? by Guppy06 · · Score: 5, Funny

    "from the quarks-coming-next dept."

    Dude, quarks have a hard enough time remembering where they are themselves! Why would you expect them to remember stuff for us as well?

  34. useful units by DemiKnute · · Score: 1

    This is equivalent to storing the contents of 7,800 DVDs in one square inch of material.

    WTF is that? I mean come on...7,800 DVDs? How much is that? I mean howabout some actually useful, quantitative stats, that everyone is familiar with.

    If someone will give me the conversion factor between Libraries of Congress and DVD's, then I'll volunteer to work out how much this baby will really hold.

    --
    .
    1. Re:useful units by Scaba · · Score: 4, Funny

      I dunno. I measure everything in football fields.

    2. Re:useful units by jofizz · · Score: 1

      well, I only thought about this for a few minutes, but here goes... the library of congress has 532 miles of shelves... 532 miles= 850 kilometres= 1 book = 1000 pages = 5cm 20 books per metre 20,000 books per kilometre 17,000,000 books. each book has 1000 pages. each book requires 5 MB @ 500kb/100 pages (test word doc) so... 17,000,000 x 5 mb = 85,000,000 MB = 85,000 GB = 85 TB. therefore 1loc = 85 TB. therefore 17,000 DVD (@5GB)/ loc therefore 1 DVD = 0.0000588 loc however, I could be waaaaay off. Ahoy!

      --
      There is no sig.
    3. Re:useful units by DemiKnute · · Score: 1

      Oh Jesus, now I'm going to have to work this out, huh. Stupid me and my bluffs.
      .
      7800 DVDs at .000058 LOC/DVD works out to .4524 LOC/in^2, at least according to dc...

      I think you're a wee bit off.

      --
      .
    4. Re:useful units by IIRCAFAIKIANAL · · Score: 2

      I use furlongs myself.

      How many furlongs in a pennyweight again?

      Nuts, I guess the original poster should have linked to a conversion site, huh?

      --
      Robots are everywhere, and they eat old people's medicine for fuel.
  35. LOCs by pompomtom · · Score: 1

    What's that in libraries of congress?

    --

    Buckets,

    pompomtom

    "There's an exception to every rule. Except for some rules"
    1. Re:LOCs by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      What's [in the] libraries of congress?

      Probably everybody *but* congress.

      (BTW, "LOC" can also stand for Lines of Code)

  36. Imagine... by jmv · · Score: 2

    equivalent to storing the contents of 7,800 DVDs in one square inch of material ...how much data could be fitter in one *cubic* inch!

    1. Re:Imagine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you made it a cube, how would you be able to read the bits inside the thing? It seems the the density mentioned does not account for the read mechanism.

    2. Re:Imagine... by ALoverOfPeace · · Score: 1

      Web elements lists the radius of a singular silicon atom as 111 picometers, or 4.3701 x 10^-9 inches. So you could fit 228828828.83 wafers in a cubic inch. Of course, not even considering the issue of reading, I doubt the actual atomic structure would be that compact. In case you were curious, that's about 1,784,864,858,400 DVDs or 67,110,918,675,840,000,000,000 bits.

    3. Re:Imagine... by schmink182 · · Score: 1

      If anyone cares, that means that a cubic inch of silicon atoms could hold about 7.1 zettabytes of data. Warning: if any casual computer user thinks they ever need that much, we have gone _way_ too far.

    4. Re:Imagine... by sweet+reason · · Score: 2

      how much data could be fitted in one *cubic* inch!

      that depends on the surface area of your cubic inch of material. this technique will only work on a surface.

      --
      Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. -- A.E.
  37. RIAA by airmax31 · · Score: 1

    so will it be legal for the riaa to split atoms found to be storing illicit copyright material?

    1. Re:RIAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope it blows up in their face :P

  38. Ahhh the bloat by Nonillion · · Score: 0

    I can just see it now....

    Minimum system requirements:
    8-32 Tb RAM
    300 Exabytes disk space required
    Windows DRM 2015
    Intel Octium 7 10GHz or better :)

    --
    "I bow to no man" - Riddick
    1. Re:Ahhh the bloat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Congratulations on being the first anti-Microsoft post of this article!

    2. Re:Ahhh the bloat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By the time this actually happens, you'll have that on your desktop hehe

  39. Small computers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's Ram/HDD, now all we need is it to become the CPU.

  40. screw that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    imagine how many copies of Beowulf you could store on one of these!

  41. and just think... by Erpo · · Score: 1

    ...by that time, we'll finally be able to run 99% of all 32-bit windows apps in wine!

    1. Re:and just think... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't you mean 64-bit or even 512.

    2. Re:and just think... by qa'lth · · Score: 1

      No, he meant 32-bit.

      And that's what makes it funny.

  42. Himpsel by Madtown+PLT · · Score: 2, Informative

    Although the article doesn't mention his first name, "Himpsel" is Franz Himpsel. Check out his homepage here.

    1. Re:Himpsel by Schwamm · · Score: 1

      i was a little surprised myself that they didn't mention his first name at all. odd, that. i kept re-reading the first few paragraphs to make sure i hadn't missed it.

      this guy is a truly nice guy. a pretty decent professor, too.
      it's good to know that once in a while the good guys do get some attention. :-)

  43. Atomic scale computers? by too_bad · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This article [http://www.eetimes.com/at/news/OEG20020319S0029]
    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!

    --
    DO NOT PANIC
  44. soft spot for me by carambola5 · · Score: 2

    Seeing as I currently attend UW-Madtown, this holds a special place in my heart... oh yeah, I'm in the Engineering Mechanics and Astronautics program, so that might have something to do with it too. Anyways, because I tend to remember cool stuff like this going on here at UW, I remembered another press release by us concerning Quantum computers. Yummy!

    --
    IWARS.
    People, in general, disappoint me. Politicians even more so.
    1. Re:soft spot for me by HerrKobes · · Score: 1

      Kind of beats that 'corpse' plant, doesn't it? It is nice to see our school in the news for something other than bad smelling flowers.

      I *used* to be in the Computer Engineering program. Seeing as I never wanted to use my degree, I changed into Letters & Sciences. Now I graduate a year earlier, and can spend my time sleeping and drinking instead of going to class. And still receive a higher GPA than you engineering dummies! =)

  45. that's it? by glwtta · · Score: 2
    equivalent to storing the contents of 7,800 DVDs in one square inch of material

    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)

    --
    sic transit gloria mundi
    1. Re:that's it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You say you expect more from the atomic scale? Wait until we get to the point where are utilizing multiple atomic energy states, and then we'll watch the numbers increase geometrically. Exciting times!

    2. Re:that's it? by Dreamweaver · · Score: 1

      RiMpa, DiMpa, DuMpalee-doo, I've got another lawsuit for you.
      RiMpa, DiMpa, DuMpalee-dee, I'm gonna sue you for stealing from me.

      Sorry, I just couldn't resist.

      --


      "If a man hasn't discovered something he will die for, he isn't fit to live" -- MLK, Jr.
    3. Re:that's it? by zeugma-amp · · Score: 1

      What I found to mbe most interesting in the article is the quote about the information density of DNA.

      The researcher's prototype resembles the way nature stores data in DNA, said Himpsel. The memory structure self-assembles into the tracks. In addition, "the density and readout speed of DNA [is] quite similar to our silicon memory," he said. While DNA uses 32 atoms to store one bit using one of four base molecules, the researcher's silicon memory uses 20 atoms including the atoms between the individual atoms that store the bits, said Himpsel.

      If the 32 atoms per bit is accurate, that represents some pretty dense storage. it seems that nature has developed some pretty powerful methods for storing information that we're only now able to compare with in the labs.

      From what I understand, the Human Genome, though it represents a massive amount of data, is also highly redundant with huge sectons of 'legacy code' that doesn't seem to have any function or purpose. 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.

      Just a thought

      --
      This is an ex-parrot!
    4. Re:that's it? by glwtta · · Score: 3, Interesting
      From what I understand, the Human Genome, though it represents a massive amount of data, is also highly redundant with huge sectons of 'legacy code' that doesn't seem to have any function or purpose.

      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.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    5. Re:that's it? by geekoid · · Score: 2

      actually, using rydberg states, they could get up to 10 bits per atom.
      so it might not be the limit.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re:that's it? by zeugma-amp · · Score: 1

      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.

      Actually, I think it is both. In these days of data measured in terrabytes in some quarters, a 'mere' 750MB of data may seem to not be that incredibly much, but considering what would appear to me to be the 'fractal' way that the information contained in DNA, it is much more than one might first suppose. Your point about the amount of information packed into DNA is well taken.

      when thinking of 'DNA as code' to be executed a question begs to be answered IMO. Is DNA an operating system, or is it merely a program run on a system in which the universe itself, and the laws that govern it are the basis of the OS under which we operate.

      --
      This is an ex-parrot!
  46. good link by lost_packet · · Score: 1
    from the link given above -
    How much human memory is there?

    And to look at a third measure, how much does human memory hold? Tom Landauer tried to estimate this some years ago and concluded that the brain held about 200 megabytes of information. [Landauer 1986]. He got this number partly by looking at the rate at which people could take in information, both by reading and by looking at pictures. He also studied estimates of the rate at which people forget things, and the amount of information adults need in order to do the tasks they normally do. His numbers (expressed in gigabits, not gigabytes), were 1.8, 3.4, 2.0, 1.4 and .5 gigabits. Averaging these and dividing by 8 yields 227 MB. Since there are between 10e12 and 10e14 neurons, this suggests that the brain contains 1,000 to 100,000 neurons for each bit of memory. Of course, much of the brain is used for perception, motor control, and the like; but even if only 1% of the brain is devoted to memory Landauer pointed out that it looks like your head accepts considerable storage inefficiency in order to be able to make effective use of the information.

    --

    BLOCK STRUCTURE breathing apparatus required for special maneuvers!!

    1. Re:good link by tutal · · Score: 1

      I don't think that that is a valid estimate. Just think, if we could actually code the motor control, perception, etc, that would easily make up several GB of code. Just think how many lines of code it would take to program a robot to dance, play football, baseball, basketball, about 20 card games, drive a car, and most importantly have sex (ok well for the last one, some people may take only one or two lines). Then just think of how insanely complex image recognition is, combine it with movement, touch, and dexterity and you are looking at a massive amount of instructions.

      Then he assumes that memory loss is final, when actually research proves that a fact or behavior once learned can easily be recalled. For example, it is not hard to pick up biking or swimming if you learned it as a kid. Also think of a programming (or natural) language that you learned early in your career, after years of not using it, getting back to programming/speaking that language will not take long once you are immersed in it.

    2. Re:good link by SethJohnson · · Score: 2


      Tutal,

      I agree with you that it seems a little unlikely that the 250mb value is accurate. I think your argument is well-though-out, but I am not so sure about your comparison of programming a robot to perform physical motion and the data a human must retain to perform similar motions and how it would be a lot of data.

      I suspect that we store the information necessary to do physical motions in a very lightweight format. I'm imagining something like how postscript works to describe curves, lines, and shading to a laser printer. If you send a picture of a page of printed text to a printer pixel-by-pixel, that's going to be several megs of data. If you send the printer the instructions of how the page is drawn in postscript, it is likely to be a couple hundred kb. Once a printer has the description of what a letter 'A' looks like in a given font, it can easily draw that letter 'A' in whatever size is desired without having to completely re-explain the drawing of a letter 'A'.

      As we develop, perhaps we don't learn to do each thing as a seperate movement, but we learn basic movements and then can plug different parameters into the formulas for those movements in order to achieve things like dancing or throwing a ball across a field.

      I am not sure, but I think what I'm saying touches on the the theory of Stephen Wolfram that he's got in that big book he's published.

      goodnight.
    3. Re:good link by tutal · · Score: 1

      I totally agree. I realise that we don't think in terms of computer code or instructions for that matter. But spend a day in a physical or occupational therapy center with patients that have suffered brain damage. Then you can truly appreciate how remarkable our brain is and how we take things like eating with a fork or recognising simple objects for granted. My point was just that I believe that the scientific, medical, and academic communities do not give the human brain the credit that it deserves. Well I'm gonna watch some TV and see if I can achieve only using .005% of my brain.

    4. Re:good link by Saeger · · Score: 2
      Why should the brain get the credit? If you want to hand out credit, give it to the awesome evolutionary process where complexity naturally emerges from simplicity.

      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.

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    5. Re:good link by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Or may be it's quite the opposite: The brain is able to do such unbelievable good compression (based on all that knowledge already learned), that all the stuff fits in that little memory.

      Just make an experiment:

      First try to remember the sentence: "This is just a silly sentence."
      Then try to remember the "sentence": "Ilqg qg apgi f gqddo gyxiyxny."

      You'll see that it's much harder to memorize the second. Why? I think it's because you need to store more information. Because in the first sentence, you have already a lot of information in your head (spelling of words, grammar, etc.), so you have only to store that part of its information which is particular to that sentence. In the second case, it's mainly a lot of letters which make no sense (well, if written directly after the other, as above you'll possibly see some sense in it :-)). So you basically have to store every bit of information (well, not really, you at least know the letters; so at next try to memorize the Russian translation of the first sentence (or if you know the Russian letters, the Arabic translation, ...).

      Indeed, I think that recognition is strongly related to data compression. In both cases, you have to identify common patterns, with the difference that for compression, you just use them for redundancy elimination, while for recognition, you have to interpret them (i.e. for recognition, it's not enough to find out "that thing this man has in his hand looks similar to the thing I've seen last week, except that this time, the small round end points to me", but you'll also have to remember: "this thing is a gun, and if that small round end points to someone, that means the person holding the gun in his hand can kill the one that end points to", detect "oh, that's me" and conclude "so I'm really in danger").

      But I'm certainly no expert in that field, so the speculation above may just be plain wrong.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    6. Re:good link by be-fan · · Score: 2

      I suspect that we store the information necessary to do physical motions in a very lightweight format.
      >>>>>>>
      It's in XML of course! Isn't everything nowadays?

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    7. Re:good link by tutal · · Score: 1

      Nonetheless, the brain can store an amazing amount of information. Remember, according to information theory, data and information are two completely seperate things. Information has one key element that data does not, that of meaning. Claude Shannon in his historical paper on information theory deomonstrated both the concept of information and compression with the sentence: "only infrmatn esentil to understandn mst b tranmitd." The data when taken as is, has no meaning, but when intellegence is applied the sentence is easily understood as "Only information essential to understanding must be transmitted." In the same manner the intricacies of movements such as dance are not thought of a move by move basis by an advanced dancer (although that is how they are learned), but rather as a natural movement to peroform, say Irish Step Dancing or the Polka. Yet initially each movement is learned, thus in a data sense the full data is entered and the brain does in a sense compress it as it is used. So what does this mean, that we continually decrease the amount of "stuff" stored in our brain. On the contrary, I would suggest that it is the brain's way of making room for more information as we continually learn. As a former pre-medical student (I turned to the light side and became a CS student) I am continuously amazed by the intellegent design of our brain the more I learn about it.

  47. karma whoring by flollywebfrog · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In 1959 Richard Feynman said that all the information accumulated in all the books in the world could theoretically fit in a cube 1/200th of an inch on a side.

    You can read the transcipt of the speech from when he made that prediction.

    Feynman worked on developing the atomic bomb, he won a nobel in physics and is known as much for his scientific research as for his story telling.

    --


    ________________
    All my sig are fjdklafjkldafjkldafdaklf
  48. Am I the only one who understands the implications by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 4, Funny

    this has for porn collecting?!?! It may soon become possible for the individual to afford enough storage, to have every single piece of pornography ever created by human beings since the beginning of time.

    I have no words.

  49. Theoretical density issues by ssyladin · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The article states that the storage capacity of this new material/system is about equal to 7800 DVDs. Just to get nit-picky and technical, and to educate people some, this number will probably be lower.

    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. 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.

    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!

    1. Re:Theoretical density issues by gerardrj · · Score: 2

      But isn't that 4.7G they quote as capacity the space allowed by the encoding? IE: there's 4.7 of payload available from RSPC payload blocks.
      I don't think they quote the 4.7G as the RAW capacity of the disks, but the formatted capacity.

      --
      Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
  50. Tolerances by DarkHelmet · · Score: 2
    This type of memory may eventually become useful for storing vast amounts of data, but because the stability of each bit of information depends on one or a few atoms, it likely to be used for applications where a small number of errors can be tolerated. "I would not want to trust my bank account to a memory where a single atom could wipe out my savings," said Himpsel.

    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.

    --
    /^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
  51. Re:MacOSX = Darwin = Communism and Atheism by geogeek6_7 · · Score: 1

    That was funny :). If I ever got a chance to moderate, you'd get +1 funny :)

  52. atomic scale memory by phaethon212 · · Score: 1

    What's the point in having such amazing densities? If all the material one would want to put on such a data storage device is locked up in some legal way, what's the point?
    Also if such a device comes to the market who needs compression? Imagine a non-compressed film at full academy resolution 2.35:1 aspect ratio, 3656x3112 pixels scanned at 4k. Of course we would need a display that could play back such a resolution. There is the IBM T221 (3840x2400)16:10 aspect ratio monitor but it only does 41hz. I would want at least 60hz refresh rate. Also music would no longer need to be compressed, I hate MP3 anyways. Hasn't anyone heard of sound quality? The quality of mp3 sucks. Give me uncompressed anyday.

    1. Re:atomic scale memory by gerardrj · · Score: 2

      All digital music is compressed. The simple act of sampling and digitizing at some arbitrary frequency and bit depth is a form of compression. It's compression by omission.
      Any TRUE audiophile would not be listening to digital audio, but instead would use high quality analog sources.

      --
      Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
  53. Prof. Himpsel by Frank+Grimes · · Score: 1
    I took a couple of classes from Prof. Himpsel when I was in school. The nanotech class was fun, when I bothered to show up (I had become rather obsessed with my own research that semester).

    See http://uw.physics.wisc.edu/~himpsel/nano.html, or this and Feynman's talk on the subject.

    --
    CfkRAp1041vYQVbFY1aIwA== RV/hBCLKKcSTP5UFK3kqsg==
  54. Re:so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Make Journal Entry. Place Link to Journal in Sig. Make +5 Comment. Then people will see the issue you want to bring to our attention. :)

  55. Re:mp3's (OT) by The_dev0 · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry, but I just can't believe anybody would consciously name a format DVDA...

    --
    Never fight naked, unless you're in prison...
  56. Great ... when do we get to use it? by bryanzera · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It seems to me that over the past several years lots of research has been done on possible storage medium, yet the basic PC storage structure has yet to change. I remember reading on /. where someone figured out how to get 10 gig on a roll of scotch tape, but I still have magnetic drives. Do you have rolls of scotch tape in your machine?

    1. Re:Great ... when do we get to use it? by astroboscope · · Score: 0
      Do you have rolls of scotch tape in your machine?

      No, but I do have electrical tape holding a 3.5" HD in a 5.25" slot. That means I've accomplished the impossible: using tape for random access storage...but not in a terribly exciting way. I eventually splurged on those mounting racks, but I haven't installed them yet.

      --
      If we were ants living on a Rubik's cube, differential geometry would be a little more confusing.
    2. Re:Great ... when do we get to use it? by JoeBuck · · 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, but there still appear to be a few more generations worth of gas in magnetic disk storage.

  57. And the real question of course remains... by evilpaul13 · · Score: 1

    When and where can I buy some! How about some economies of scale too, so I can buy some and still get a car.

    Seeing as this is still basically proof of concept, and I previously thought it was possible, I'm not all that impressed.

  58. Well... it looks to me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That the brain uses compression to store all this information, therefore putting more information onto the IMO insanely innacurate GUESStimate above.

    It almost kinda fits, if your drunk. ;)

    Information isin't 'lost' its simply compressed, and stored away in the inner-hub of your brain, allowing for the stuff you use more often to be put to the outer-ring so that it can be used faster.

    Huh... kinda sounds like NFTS to me.

    *runs around screaming* Aaah! I've got Windows on the brain! AAHH!!

  59. Another stupid article. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    And what's with the "equivalent to the contents of 7800 DVDs / in^2?" They must think that I'm too stupid to comprehend the enormous storage capacity unless they dumb it down a little. What can't they just tell me how many bits/in^2 or bits/cm^2?


    I'm going to Quit Slashdot now.


    later...

  60. Re: Nothing new by Hitokage_Nishino · · Score: 2

    CDROMs use a large amount of raw data doing the same thing. A "700mb" CDROM actually holds around 805mb or so, but when used as a data cd that extra 100 goes to error checking.

  61. Re:MacOSX = Darwin = Communism and Atheism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "hail satan!" - little jimmy urine of mindless self indulgence if mac os is evil, what is windows?

  62. Data Recovery by chuckw · · Score: 2

    What is amazing is not the part about the data density, but the part about the way this memory is written. It is done by adding and removing individual groups of atoms. This means that, unlike today's hard drives, it should be possible to completely and totally delete data from the medium.

    --
    *Condense fact from the vapor of nuance*
  63. Re:MacOSX = Darwin = Communism and Atheism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its also as old as the hills. IIRC, about 1.5 - 2 years that has been around.

  64. What's so new about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AFAIK, there have been lots of reports on single-electron transitor for several years.

    Though not ready for production, actual implementation do exist today, and since transitor has more area in application, memory-only device at atomic scale is not a news.

    Try "googling" with "single-electron transistor SET", and you should find tons of resources on this topic.

  65. well... by haaz · · Score: 2

    pesky Madisonians, always coming up with crazy stuff like this. you gotta hate us. ;-)

    -- haaz, who is pretty sure he'll never come up with anything resembling this. (and lives in Madison.)

    --
    -- haaz.
  66. Re:Am I the only one who understands the implicati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have no words.

    I have one:

    JAIL.

  67. Corrected link by mildness · · Score: 0

    http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/1999/split/pnu42 9-2.htm

    Queer. When I post the correct link to /. I get the same problem as the original author, i.e. a space is inserted between the first "2" and the "9". Remove the space to get the correct address.

    Beal

    --
    bamph
    1. Re:Corrected link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's Taco's "Queerness Filter." It alters all links to point to gay porn.

    2. Re:Corrected link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fag.

  68. 1 bit per 20 atoms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you read the article, you'll notice it takes them 20 atoms per bit. They use one atom to represent the bit and 19 other to hold it in place and mark its location when the bit is 0.

  69. NOBODY MOVE !!! by __aahlyu4518 · · Score: 2

    I lost my Library of Congress somewhere around here... please don't step on it...

  70. This just in... by Bingo+Foo · · Score: 2, Funny
    From the Los Alamos preprint server:


    \documentclass{article}
    \title{The P/NP Shit}
    \author{airmax31}
    \begin{document} ...

    --
    taken! (by Davidleeroth) Thanks Bingo Foo!
  71. Well a very good first step at by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Getting enouch space to make the POS OSS called linux (perhaps you've herd of it. this is an os written by some half assed dweeb that lickes to licke little boys and molest your mom).

    Or it could be enough for a shit load of OpenBSD.
    and just enough for warcraft 3 to be played from ram for good speed (TM)
    (yeah right)

  72. seen this before by aaw · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Reading through the article, I noticed the following tidbit:
    Eventually, "instead of moving them, we [picked] up the atoms," using a scanning tunneling microscope, he said.
    This reminded me of an invention touted by one of my old professors at MIT. Low and behold, a search at the US patent office turned up this patent filed in 1994 for a high density dimer memory device which utilizes a scanning tunneling microscope
    . . .which in response to being placed in intimate contact with the lower atom of a selected dimer results in an interatomic bond which accommodates pulling the lower atom upward and thus pulling the upper atom downward so as to effect a change in the dimer angle.
    Looks like this isn't so novel after all.
  73. Reminds me of the IBM christmas card... by photonic · · Score: 1
    ... made by Don Eigler. He moved 35 xenon atoms with the tip of a STM to form the IBM logo.

    To get an idea of the possible data rate with this machine: it took him 22 hours!

    --
    karma police: arrest this man, he talks in maths; he buzzes like a fridge, he's like a detuned radio. [radiohead]
  74. 2 words by enigmatichmachine · · Score: 1

    "Cubic Inches"

    thats 681 THOUSAND DVD's.

    --
    -and occasionaly a giant moose.
    1. Re:2 words by Kitaro242 · · Score: 0

      Bruce Sterling had an interesting quote about almost this very thing in a book called 'Digital Law' which was compiled by someone else.

      Kitaro242
      http://www.VerizonEatsPoop.com

  75. Voting problems by Talinom · · Score: 1

    Imagine the problems of using this to store election results in Florida. The resulting chad debacle would be a riot. Watching people using their electron microscopes to see if their favorite candidate really won for 72 straight hours on CNN would give whole new meaning to the phrase "As far as winning the election goes, I give him a small chance."

    --
    "Giving money and power to governments is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." - P.J. O'Rourke
  76. Re:Am I the only one who understands the implicati by Aceticon · · Score: 2

    Am i the only one to think that Saber-tooth Tiger bestiality would be a bit to much???

  77. Re:Am I the only one who understands the implicati by Aceticon · · Score: 2

    I'll tell you one thing:
    - After you've seen a pre-historic drawing of a penis in a cave wall, you've seen them all.

  78. I believe it when I see it! by mnordstr · · Score: 2

    Nuff said! =)

  79. Neutrinos by Kinlan · · Score: 1

    Would the atoms and electrons not be effect by rougue Neutrinos more than a normal hardrive, which obviously needs millions of atoms to encode one bit?

    --
    As cunning as a fox, which has just been appointed professor of cunning at Oxford University. http://www.kinlan.co
    1. Re:Neutrinos by Kinlan · · Score: 1

      Jeez I can't spell!

      It should have read

      Would the atoms and electrons not be effected by rougue neutrinos more than a normal harddrive would? Which obviously needs millions of atoms to encode one bit?

      --
      As cunning as a fox, which has just been appointed professor of cunning at Oxford University. http://www.kinlan.co
    2. Re:Neutrinos by Schwamm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      what exactly do you mean by "rogue neutrinos"?

      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)

  80. Cool 2 dimenstional media by Lozzer · · Score: 1

    This is equivalent to storing the contents of 7,800 DVDs in one square inch of material.

    It may be one inch square in cross section. Unfortuately its twelve light years high. Oh, well.

    --
    Special Relativity: The person in the other queue thinks yours is moving faster.
  81. Great! by danimrich · · Score: 1

    So my whole DVD collection will fit onto 1 cm ;-)

    --
    where's all that Karma?
  82. Pr0n by empaler · · Score: 1

    At least they're using their time _building_ something... even if it _is_ a pr0n collection...

  83. Must keep 100 feet away from microwave ovens by 3seas · · Score: 2

    With such density, doesn't it become more subceptable to EMP (electro magnetic pulse), sun flares, hot coffee, etc.?

    or will they be incased in lead or something?

  84. A little bit wrong... by r6144 · · Score: 1

    Should be 3.5e-21 DOLLARS per atom, and 2.8e-8 DOLLARS per TB, which happens to be 1/357000 cent.

  85. Conclusion by Per+Wigren · · Score: 2

    The brain uses an intelligent lossy compression scheme.

    --
    My other account has a 3-digit UID.
  86. Storage size versus device size? by JeffRC · · Score: 2, Funny

    Great, my desk is already cluttered with all my computer stuff, scanners, printers, hubs, etc. Where am I going to find space for a scanning tunneling electron microscope?

  87. Stop the technology!!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't want to be forced to buy anything new ever
    again. Somebody tell these people that we are happy
    with the floppy and will Never need more storage space.
    ever.

  88. So now I'll.. by MarvinMouse · · Score: 2

    finally be able to burn off my entire MP3 collection onto one disk. :-)

    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."

    --
    ~ kjrose
  89. M$ Palladium by SassyDave · · Score: 1

    Finally! The technology is available to embed the Palladium chip right into their customers' bodies. This will save M$ millions by not having to produce all that proprietary hardware. Think of all the benefits: I can get updates for my brain at WindowsUpdate.com, I can let M$ run scans on me to upload my lifestyle preferences to make my computing experience more legal and enjoyable.

  90. Re:Am I the only one who understands the implicati by gosand · · Score: 2
    this has for porn collecting?!?! It may soon become possible for the individual to afford enough storage, to have every single piece of pornography ever created by human beings since the beginning of time.

    This just in...
    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 ..... gathering PORN!"

    Oh, wait.

    What do we do now?

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  91. Optimum balance of density and speed by WebDBDeveloper · · Score: 1

    "Somewhere on the way to the atomic limit is an optimum combination of density and speed."

    Something tells me this is going to be the 32 atoms per bit that DNA uses.

  92. Did you consider ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That they had already accounted for this when the gave the size quote?

  93. Re:Am I the only one who understands the implicati by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 2

    Well, if that damn SETI would get off its ass, and get us a dialup account GOL (galaxy online), we could start collecting alien porn. You know, that green chick Kirk did wasn't half bad...

  94. Holy Crap by umask077 · · Score: 1

    Thats alot of porn!

    --
    --- Always remember. 99.36% of all statistics are inaccurate.
  95. Does "DVDA" spell something? by yerricde · · Score: 1

    I just can't believe anybody would consciously name a format DVDA

    What's wrong? Do the initials for "Digital Versatile Disc[1] Audio" spell something lewd? Is a "duda"[2] something sexual in some foreign language?



    [1] Yes, I know that the DVD standard does not contain an official expansion for "DVD", but this one was commonly used just before the DVD forum decided that there would be no expansion.

    [2] U == V in Latin, and many jokes often treat U == V when adding up the Roman numerals in "CVTE PVRPLE DINOSAVR".

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
    1. Re:Does "DVDA" spell something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As well as DVD Audio, DVDA also stands for Dual Vaginal, Dual Anal. :)

    2. Re:Does "DVDA" spell something? by The_dev0 · · Score: 1

      DVDA is a term used in the pornographic movie industry describing a scene that involves double-vaginal/double-anal penetration. The term was popularised by the movie Orgazmo, about a mormon who becomes a porn star. (made by the guys who do southpark, Matt Stone and Trey Parker)

      --
      Never fight naked, unless you're in prison...
  96. Trustworthy by nukeade · · Score: 1

    "I would not want to trust my bank account to a memory where a single atom could wipe out my savings,"

    Still, he trusts the magnetic orientation of a metal disk or metallic tape. However, a concern would be if some of the atoms happened to be radioactive, so the gold and silicon would have to be processed very carefully to ensure that none of the atoms are unstable.

    ~Ben

  97. You forgot one by Kettleboy · · Score: 1

    also (approximately) equilivent to 366.6 billion closely typed pages of paper

    --
    Enjoy your life, it's the only one you've got!
  98. Race on! by gerardrj · · Score: 2

    Any bets as to how long it will be before some lab announces they use atoms to store entire bytes?
    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.

    --
    Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
  99. Don't believe it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I graduated from a UW daughter college and nothing good can come from Wisconsin. IT is a dead industry - don't believe the hype!

  100. same old.. by bobbinFrapples · · Score: 1

    Bohring news...

  101. Re:mp3's (OT) by guidovalduchi · · Score: 1

    HA! Right on, the obligatory Orgasmo plug - I was wondering when somebody was going to pull that out of their .... nevermind.

  102. Imagine the creations... by IdleTime · · Score: 1

    Imagine the creations you can make by re-arranging the atoms.

    Hey! What kind of a monster is that????
    It's not a monster, it's my MP3 collection!

    --
    If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
  103. carbon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what about using carbon, and then enabling systems that will be built using nanofibers and such to have a two tiered processing/storage system. Imagine the parallel threading that could occur then

  104. +5 Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    mod that one up its so funny that i was going to post it

  105. Re:Am I the only one who understands the implicati by fferreres · · Score: 2

    Or even more if we learn to travel faster than light. That way we can go very very far away and start recording what everyone actually did since the begining of humans life.

    --
    unfinished: (adj.)
  106. Matrioshka Brains by qengho · · Score: 1

    Thank you for this thought-provoking link. I'd love to see the slashdot hive mind discuss this.

    Somebody mod this guy up.

  107. Re:Am I the only one who understands the implicati by NoMoreNicksLeft · · Score: 2

    Yeh, we'll have 0.0000000001 x 0.0000000001 pixel resolution for the solar system. Talk about voyeurism....

  108. I noticed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...that they mentioned needing to access the information faster than they currently do. Through the entire article I was wondering why they kept referring to accessing the memory in a linear fashion. At the density they are talking about they should look at reading all of the bits of a set of tracks at one time. If you want 32bit memory then you have 32 read/write heads. Each one picks up one on/off bit and sends it all back at the same time. Same for 64 or 128 bit information. Also, I wouldn't think you could put so many heads side by side - so why not arrange them on a diagonal or even separate the read/write heads by one or two tracks?

    If the above were done (they were looking at speeding up their reading and writing by 100,000 times what it currently is now) then this would speed it up even more. :-) Imagine having a drive which reads at 640,000 rpms (ie: 64bits * 10,000rpms). (Although that is like comparing Apples to Microsoft....er oranges. ;-) ) They would have to have a buffer to slow things back down. :-)

  109. Heinlein by Kafir · · Score: 1

    Feynman's "Plenty of Room at the Bottom" speech is deservedly famous, but the earliest discussion I can think of of the absolute limits of information storage is in Robert Heinlein's 1951 novel, Between Planets , where the Venerians' secret plans are encoded on a tiny "message wire," hidden in a ring. The human protagonist is surprised that so much can be stored in such a small object, and some passing comment is made about the possibilities of atomic information storage. I think.

    And, for that matter, the tiny mechanical hands described in Feynman's speech are very much like the "waldoes" in Heinlein's story, "Waldo" (1942).

  110. Re:Am I the only one who understands the implicati by fferreres · · Score: 2

    Depends on the size of the lenses :-) We'll just need some photons here and there to reconstruct the thing. We'll be so advanced by that time. We can even have nanotech robots chasing the right photons :)

    --
    unfinished: (adj.)