Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Stanford's Quantum Hologram Sets Storage Record

Posted by timothy on from the whiffs-of-ephemera dept.

eldavojohn writes "It's often assumed that representing data reaches a limit when you get to the point that an atom represents one bit in some form or fashion. But Stanford University researchers have used a quantum hologram model to store the characters 'S' and 'U' by encoding the data at a rate of 35 bits per electron."

52 of 210 comments (clear)

  1. versus USB by KingAlanI · · Score: 3, Funny

    And I thought my 8GB USB flash drive was high-density! (20mm x 54mm x 8mm)

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    1. Re:versus USB by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wow, the only thing more dense is Stanford's quantum hologram. A close second, as usual, is the first post, followed by the secretary at work.

    2. Re:versus USB by wjh31 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      i would imagine a 2TB 3.5" drive is not 256* the volume of that, and so is bigger, however you might want to have a look at 32GB SDHC card for high density storage

    3. Re:versus USB by ConanG · · Score: 2, Informative

      Or the 16 GB microSDHC cards. The 32GB ones are just around the corner.

  2. STFU... by Narnie · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sweet... now they're just a 'T' and 'F' away from writing something useful.

    --
    greed@All_Evils:~#
    1. Re:STFU... by pnevin · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sweet... now they're just a 'T' and 'F' away from writing something useful.

      That's just cynical. Everyone knows that this is just a step towards the ultimate goal - an 16-atom-tall image of Princess Leia.

    2. Re:STFU... by Bysshe · · Score: 3, Funny

      with C and K you get quantum pr0n...

      and then you can get your protons off.

      --
      Read what I mean, not what I wrote.
  3. Sub nano data recovery??? by schizz69 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I bet recovering data off an atom could prove...... Difficult. :s

    1. Re:Sub nano data recovery??? by fluch · · Score: 2

      Especially if the electron rolls away and hides under the rug...
      I can imagine the outcry at the SU lab: "Where did this blody hide?!? Did anybody see my electron?"

    2. Re:Sub nano data recovery??? by Clever7Devil · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's why you need redundancy. Do I hear 2 atoms?

      --
      "By the time they had diminished from 50 to 8, the other dwarves began to suspect 'Hungry.'" -Gary Larson
    3. Re:Sub nano data recovery??? by CastrTroy · · Score: 5, Funny

      So, would that leave you with a Redundant Independant Array of Atoms (RIAA)? Perfect for storing my music.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    4. Re:Sub nano data recovery??? by pushing-robot · · Score: 4, Funny

      But that could get expensive fast. How much does each atom cost?

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
    5. Re:Sub nano data recovery??? by Fear+the+Clam · · Score: 4, Funny

      They should do it with positrons.

      Are you sure?

    6. Re:Sub nano data recovery??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      $.99 per atom.
      Molecules are $9.99

      ipod nano compatible.

    7. Re:Sub nano data recovery??? by noidentity · · Score: 2, Funny

      So, would that leave you with a Redundant Independant Array of Atoms (RIAA)? Perfect for storing my music.

      But that could get expensive fast. How much does each atom cost?

      Similar to homeopathy, the RIAA's civil damages seem inversely proportional to the amount, so I'm not sure we can represent the cost of an atom.

    8. Re:Sub nano data recovery??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      He's positive

  4. That's great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    And by letting S=0 and U=1 we can now represent a bit using 70 bits! Oh wai-

    1. Re:That's great! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      And by letting S=0 and U=1 we can now represent a bit using 70 bits! Oh wai-

      You'll be hearing from Microsoft's patent lawyers.

  5. Space versus time tradeoff by Carnildo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They're storing data in a small space, sure, but it's got the same problem that traditional holograms do: it takes a good deal of computation time to figure out how to encode the information you want in wave patterns.

    --
    "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    1. Re:Space versus time tradeoff by sremick · · Score: 2

      Agreed. The first thing that jumped to my mind after reading this article was that it would not scale well past a few characters.

      Neat trick, though.

    2. Re:Space versus time tradeoff by Solder+Fumes · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Maybe quantum computers will be really good at doing this.

  6. Dwell not by dmomo · · Score: 4, Funny

    At least your device is also capable of holding the "B"

    1. Re:Dwell not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      I heard they were working on "C" and "K"...

  7. Neat by ShooterNeo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    One thing most 'futurists' agree on is that the ultimate 'end game' of technology appears to be the conversion of all matter in the solar system into machine parts and computational elements. It's a logical end result of exponential growth. (and, actually, would be only the beginning : such a 'civilization' would eventually grow to convert the entire universe, but this would take much longer due to the snails pace of light)

    It's neat to think that such a civilization could store even more information than an obvious cap of '1 bit per atom'.

    1. Re:Neat by nine-times · · Score: 4, Funny

      One thing most 'futurists' agree on is that the ultimate 'end game' of technology appears to be the conversion of all matter in the solar system into machine parts and computational elements. It's a logical end result of exponential growth. (and, actually, would be only the beginning : such a 'civilization' would eventually grow to convert the entire universe, but this would take much longer due to the snails pace of light)

      What makes you think this hasn't already happened? Maybe we're part of a big computer thats trying to answer some kind of big question or something.

      Actually, never mind. That seems infinitely improbable to me.

    2. Re:Neat by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2

      I was going to do that ;) now where did my mice get to?

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    3. Re:Neat by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 4, Funny

      Maybe we're just somebody's porn collection.

      --
      This space available.
    4. Re:Neat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Probably, it explains why i am permanently aroused by every single thing around me, even that comma.

    5. Re:Neat by DigiShaman · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well that's good. At least we will be the last thing to be deleted on the vast cosmic hard drive.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    6. Re:Neat by JWman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's a logical end result of exponential growth.

      Actually, that logic is flawed. The assumption that we will continue to see exponential growth forever in anything is pretty flawed, simply because of different laws kicking in. Look at trends in computer ownership, or TVs or anything else that hits its prime and hits it big. For a good while these things do have an exponential growth curve, but obviously that growth cannot continue indefinitely, or people would have to start buying two or three TV sets at a time every couple of days, and then the next week buy 3 TV sets every day, and then every hour....

      This is the fundamental problem with extrapolation taken too far. The truth of the matter is that you have no idea what the curve looks like, regardless of how much data you have. It could be exponential growth for thousands of years, and then suddenly take a nose dive and drop back down close to where it started, or perhaps grow faster. Extrapolating too far is foolishness that happens far too often.
      I've heard the discussion of converting all matter into computational elements, but a FAR more likely growth curve for computing power is not exponential, but sigmoidal.

      Thus, I would argue that converting all matter into computational elements would be the asymptotic 'end game' of technology that we will never quite reach, but always be moving towards (though our progress will slow). Many growth patterns follow a sigmoidal curve.

    7. Re:Neat by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      To ruin a perfectly good Hitchhiker's guide:

      Actually it's not infinitely improbable. It's actually extremely probable.

      Now obviously there is life in our universe whatever it may be. (I think therefore I am. Etc...) If life is capable of evolving into sentient, intelligent, technological life then eventually it's almost guaranteed that they'll simulate another universe. As long as each universe simulates at least ONE other universe then the probability of being in a simulation is > 50%.

      The chances that we are at the "Top Level" of the universe and that we aren't being simulated is exceedingly low. I imagine that a civilization capable of creating simulated life is capable of creating more than one simulation of simulated life and therefore had many many simulations.

    8. Re:Neat by ShooterNeo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ok, my logic isn't based on math, it's based on common sense.

      Go look at a a modern factory using current robotics. Do you notice that the factory could make some of the parts used in the machines in that factory? And that the robots can do basically anything that a human hand can do, given a proper setup?

      It's perfectly reasonable to extrapolate just a LITTLE bit and imagine a very large factory that can make every part used in the factory itself, from the ICs in the control circuitry to lubricants for the moving parts. Said factory already exists, it is just distributed across the world and currently depends on human labor for many things.

      Now, what ultimate needs does this factory have, if you could replace the human intelligence of the workers with really smart software? Well, it needs various metals and carbon and silicon and all sorts of other stuff that happen to be found all over our solar system, not just on earth.

      It also would need energy, which happens to be freely created and dumped into space by our star.

      So common sense is that once such a factory exists and no longer is constrained by human labor for it to grow, it could exponentially grow to swallow up all the available matter in the solar system, almost.

      Yes, the curve would be sigmoidal...somewhere around the point that it comes time to assimilate pluto or Kuiper belt objects, the rate of growth would level off. And we'd never convert EVERY last scrap of matter, it would be an asymptotic end game at that point, yes.

      But what's the difference between converting 90% of everything within a a light day of the Sun and 100% from a practical perspective? Either way, it is going to be pretty darn impressive for those humans that live to see it. (if any do)

    9. Re:Neat by kitsunewarlock · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, the comma is un-questionably the sluttiest punctuation mark in the english language; personally I prefer the exoticism of the semi-colon, but people exclaim that I'm some kind of fetishist!

      --
      Ginga no Rekshiya Mata Each page.
    10. Re:Neat by ShooterNeo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem with this theory : it assumes that each universe has the capacity in terms of available matter that could build a computer capable of simulating an entire universe THE SAME SIZE as the one above it. Not possible.

    11. Re:Neat by antibryce · · Score: 4, Funny

      when I was 10-11 my dad caught me looking at porn on our C64. The next day my mom made him pack the computer up for several years until we got a new PC.

      Let's hope God doesn't have a mom.

    12. Re:Neat by KeX3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just because the simulation doesn't throw up "LOADING" when you go past jupiter doesn't mean the entire known universe is one big zone. If building a simulated world, it would make no sense at all to simulate the entire universe. Simulate the close proximity, use a skybox for the rest.

    13. Re:Neat by OolimPhon · · Score: 2, Funny

      Bah! It's universes all the way up!

    14. Re:Neat by foniksonik · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's why there is that nasty speed of light constraint in this universe... you can't see past the light horizon... well you can but not in the present time, you only get to see pre-computed archived data.

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
  8. They did... how much?? by w0mprat · · Score: 4, Informative

    35 bits per electron?! This kind of resets a few common assumptions about how much data can be stored in matter. Feynman was right.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There's_Plenty_of_Room_at_the_Bottom

    --
    After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
    1. Re:They did... how much?? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If I understand holography and what they're doing correctly (and I DID work as a tech in Emmett Leith's lab so I have some clue), they're transforming the information.

      Yes, each electron has information from 35 bits. But more than one electron has that same information, encoded differently. How many storage electrons do they need to encode it in a way that is recoverable?

      The information per electron is the total information encoded divided by the total number of electrons needed to encode it at a high enough resolution to be recovered.

      Also: The illustration of the way they're encoding it looks like it's not just electrons that encode it, but also their absence. Add in HOLES to the count of "things encoding the bits".

      I'll be surprised if the total comes out to more than one bit per electron site. (Note that they may get more than one such site per atom.)

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    2. Re:They did... how much?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It sounds like cheating to me as well. They don't seem to be counting the MOLECULES necessary for creating the interference patterns. How many support atoms does it take to encode each bit of information? If it takes more than a couple for each bit, then how is this better than IBM's effort?

      From the article:

      On the two-dimensional surface of the copper, electrons zip around, behaving as both particles and waves, bouncing off the carbon monoxide molecules the way ripples in a shallow pond might interact with stones placed in the water. The ever-moving waves interact with the molecules and with each other to form standing "interference patterns" that vary with the placement of the molecules.

      By altering the arrangement of the molecules, the researchers can create different waveforms, effectively encoding information for later retrieval. To encode and read out the data at unprecedented density, the scientists have devised a new technology, Electronic Quantum Holography.

  9. How much data? by LingNoi · · Score: 2, Funny

    The article didn't go into any detail about this.

    Anyone know how many libraries of congress this is?

    1. Re:How much data? by textstring · · Score: 3, Informative

      35 bits is about 4x10^-13 LoC's, taking 1 LoC = 10TB.
      so, you could fit the entire library of congress in about 9x10^-12 grams of copper.

  10. Re:Wowie! by Selfbain · · Score: 4, Funny

    My god! You're so right! We should like totally stop doing research because it's so hard and takes effort.

    --
    Well, it has never been successfully tested.
  11. Yeah but... by geminidomino · · Score: 2, Funny

    Read the fine print

    "35 bits per electron.*"

    1 kilobit=1000 bits
    1 bit=1000 bquarks

    Goddamn marketers! It's 1024!

  12. Screw bytes per dollar by kkrajewski · · Score: 5, Funny

    I want the most bytes per MOLE next time I shop for a hard disk!

    1. Re:Screw bytes per dollar by tool462 · · Score: 2, Funny

      6.02e23 ought to be enough for anybody.

  13. Re:Carbon-13 storage by Yeti.SSM · · Score: 5, Funny

    Radioactive storage anyone?

    Then all your pr0n collection would decay after some time. Not a viable solution.

    --
    R Tape loading error, 0:1
  14. You mean it's just a hoax? by iwein · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If they can't recover the data, how did they prove it was ever there? I didn't read the article in good /. fashion, but if it avoids this question I'm sure it's not to be taken seriously.

    --
    Show a man some news, distract him for an hour. Show a man some mod points, distract him for the rest of his life.
  15. A good point, actually... by tygerstripes · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I remember discussing related "small-scale storage" issues with my brother once. Two concepts were of particular interest:

    1. Spin and such: If we want to store on a very small scale, why not use the intrinsic properties of molecules, atoms and particles? A simple example would be using a caffeine molecule, which can exist in 8 different molecular arrangements (I forget the exact details - was it aggregate Spin?), as 3-bit memory. I'm sure there are more suitable molecules, or applications on smaller scales, but the concept is sound.

    2. Holographic storage: When part of a holographic surface is destroyed or decayed, it does not result in the hologram missing parts, but in a degradation of its overall clarity, since each area of the surface encodes a little of the information about the whole hologram. If storage could be designed around the same concept, data would not be lost unless enough of the whole holograph were destroyed or corrupted.

    I particularly like this last idea, but unfortunately I suspect it would only work as permanent - not active - storage, such as read-only media. I think you could only write each bit of the hologram (or equivalent) if you knew what the whole was going to look like.

    This study seems to demonstrate the same conceptual problem, although it isn't mentioned. The resultant "picture" could only be constructed by moving atoms around until the interference between their electrons produced the desired pattern. Trying to add to it would require a re-arrangement of the whole structure every time, and such arrangements would increase in complexity exponentially.

    --
    Meta will eat itself
  16. Rumor I Heard by qzak · · Score: 2, Funny

    I hear this is replacing Blu-Ray as the basis for the storage disk for the PS4, which now has an estimated MSRP of $4260285021.99.

  17. Re:High School Science? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But how long will the electrons stay in these different levels?