Slashdot Mirror


Researchers Store Optical Data In Five Dimensions

Al writes "Researchers from Swinburne University of Technology in Victoria, Australia, have developed an optical material capable of storing information in five dimensions. Using three wavelengths and two polarizations of light, the Australian researchers were able to write six different patterns within the same area. The material is made up of layers of gold nanorods suspended in clear plastic that has been spun flat onto a glass substrate and multiple data patterns can be written and read within the same area in the material without interference. The team achieved a storage density of 1.1 terabytes per cubic centimeter by writing data to stacks of 10 nanorod layers."

239 comments

  1. And.. by MyLongNickName · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... if you add a sixth dimension (time), you can store a near-infinite amount of information!

    Retrieval is a bitch though.

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    1. Re:And.. by Burning1 · · Score: 4, Funny

      My 6th dimensional storage device is /dev/null in order to retrieve the data, all you have to do is go back to the exact moment in time that it was written.

    2. Re:And.. by fireman+sam · · Score: 5, Funny

      I use the MD5 compression algorithm to store my data. I still haven't found a good MD5 decompressor yet.

      --
      it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
    3. Re:And.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Seeing that the fourth dimension is TIME just what is the 5h and 6th?

    4. Re:And.. by plover · · Score: 1

      So if there are 1,000,000,000 nanorods to a rod, and there are 502.92 cm to a rod, there must be 1,988,387 nanorods in a cm. But since a nanorod is only a unit of length and doesn't give a width or depth, we can't really figure out how many nanorods to the cubic cm.

      --
      John
    5. Re:And.. by Tumbleweed · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      But since a nanorod is only a unit of length and doesn't give a width or depth, we can't really figure out how many nanorods to the cubic cm.

      Or how many nanorods to the hogshead, dagnabit!

    6. Re:And.. by alexborges · · Score: 1

      HUH?

      You dont get it, do you?

      --
      NO SIG
    7. Re:And.. by x2A · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is no "the" anythingth dimension; a dimension is just a property or variable that can be changed independantly of other dimensions within the context. So, in many areas of physics, the four dimensions you use in equations etc will often include time, but that doesn't mean that time is some universal dimension to be found in all equasions. For this storage, when you do the reading/writing is irrelevant to the data, eg, if you write a 1 at 4pm, it will be the same as if you wrote that 1 at 5pm. But, if you write it in a different colour, then the data is different, so, the data at any location can be expressed as a function of the intensity of each of the three colours (or wavelengths) and the intensity of the two different polorizations of light - five dimensions.

      If for example you want to talk about the mass of any of the points where data's stored, then what matters is how many atoms there are there, nothing else is relevant, and so you'd only say there's one dimension.

      So as you see, dimensions aren't universal things, they're purely contextual.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    8. Re:And.. by selven · · Score: 2, Informative

      Can I also inject the fact that dimensions are perpendicular, not parallel, so going into a parallel universe is NOT the same as another dimension.

    9. Re:And.. by MindPhlux · · Score: 1

      This is true when you are modeling reality, a continuous system - particularly in terms of dynamics. Dimensions may be arbitrary and redefinable within dynamical systems theory, but phenomenologically time is always already the "universal" which allows for the possibility of any being whatsoever. That is to say, there IS time - which IS (equiprimordially) AS the gound for the contextuality which lets it be.

    10. Re:And.. by x2A · · Score: 1

      Absolutely! Damn that one annoys me! You'd have to shift across a dimension to move into a parallel universe, but you can't move into a different dimension, cuz you have to be within a dimension to be able to move along it!

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    11. Re:And.. by quenda · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Adisde from the mis-use of the word "dimension", this is not revolutionary.

      Magnetic hard disks commonly get 500GB on a much smaller platter. Why is optical so much harder?

    12. Re:And.. by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      500gig per cm squared? No, hard drives are usually measured by imperial units, and are not anywhere near 500gig/sq inch.

    13. Re:And.. by home-electro.com · · Score: 1

      cheap sensationalism, timmy.

      "three wavelengths and two polarizations of light" -- that's TWO, not six, and not dimensions but PARAMETERS.

    14. Re:And.. by Hucko · · Score: 1

      And who invented and used the first prototype helicopter?
      The Aborigine?
      Oh y'mean that boomerang thingy? HA! next you'll tell me it takes a imagination and understanding of physics to create such a device. We know they don't have any of that!

      Nah, in Australia, you just pull them outa fallen trees. It is 'cos of we are on the underside of the earth and the Coriolis effect curls the bark that way.

      Git.

      --
      Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
    15. Re:And.. by Splintax · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How is this a misuse of the word 'dimension'? It doesn't necessarily refer to a spatial dimension.

    16. Re:And.. by Phoghat · · Score: 1

      It's Ron Popiel and the EVERY MOVIE EVER MADE disc, yes folks you can own every movie ever made on one single disc. No getting up from your couch to pop in another, just a click of your remote can take you from "Heidi" to "Deep Throat". If you call within the next half hour, we'll also send you EVER MOVIE THAT WILL BE MADE. But wait there's more! If you pay by credit card you will also receive ShamWow.

      --
      Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
    17. Re:And.. by quenda · · Score: 1

      How is this a misuse of the word 'dimension'?

      If having two polarisations is an extra dimension, then a dual-layer DVD must be 3-dimension storage.

    18. Re:And.. by quenda · · Score: 2, Insightful

      mind you, that is no worse than calling stereoscopic pictures or movies "3D". But true 3D is holographic.

    19. Re:And.. by Splintax · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't have a good grasp on the intricacies of DVDs, but if you're saying that information is recorded on DVDs in three parameters, then yes, it could be called 3-dimensional. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension

    20. Re:And.. by Golddess · · Score: 1

      TFS says the optical has a density of 1.1TB per cm cubed, not squared. Dunno what the cubic storage density of HDD platters is, but it definitely would bring it closer to this new value than if you only calculated the density as a flat surface.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    21. Re:And.. by SixDimensionalArray · · Score: 1

      Hmm.. six dimensions? That sounds about right, should be enough for anybody! Just like 640K ought to be enough for anybody! :D

      -6D

  2. 5 dimensions? by ionix5891 · · Score: 4, Funny

    x,y,z,strange and charmed?

    1. Re:5 dimensions? by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      If you had some way to store data in particle spin, I could easily see 6 dimensions.
      x,y,z position, plus x,y,z spin.

      Interesting stuff....

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    2. Re:5 dimensions? by Samedi1971 · · Score: 1

      If you had some way to store data in particle spin, I could easily see 6 dimensions.
      x,y,z position, plus x,y,z spin.

      Interesting stuff....

      You should let a physicist know you discovered 3 new dimensions. I think they'd want to know about that.

    3. Re:5 dimensions? by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 2, Funny

      More likely x, y, z, ana/kata, and Chuck Norris

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    4. Re:5 dimensions? by blueg3 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Most physicists should be perfectly comfortable applying the term "dimensions" to cases other than spatial dimensions.

      Once you're used to infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces, media articles that mention "five-dimensional storage" are only infinitesimally interesting by comparison.

    5. Re:5 dimensions? by thhamm · · Score: 2, Funny

      that's more than 5. chuck alone has 11 dimensions!

    6. Re:5 dimensions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      There are 12 Dimensions of Creation

      But yes, Chuck Norris is 11 of them. I think the 12th is the one created by the chair Ballmer threw.

      There, I made my /. references for the day. Back to non-productive activity at work.

    7. Re:5 dimensions? by RulerOf · · Score: 4, Funny

      No no no, only string theory has 11 dimensions.

      Chuck has as many dimensions as he pleases, and Chuck is not a theory; Chuck is real. And unlike string theory, he will kill you.

      --
      Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
    8. Re:5 dimensions? by sdpuppy · · Score: 1
      Whooooosh!!!

      But you're absolutely correct - physicists (as well as other enlightened and intelligent people) refer to parameters as dimensions.

      You need them so that you don't overlap with yourself and become a Bose.

      Thumbs up & high five (one for each dimension).

      High six if you have an extra finger.

    9. Re:5 dimensions? by khellendros1984 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A classic example given in programming is a 6 dimensional array.
      1. Building
      2. Floor
      3. Wing
      4. Room
      5. Shelf
      6. Book
      I guess I've been accustomed to thinking about larger dimension numbers than 3 or 4 for a long time.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    10. Re:5 dimensions? by blueg3 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Your example is easy to relate to, but there's a problem people should be aware of. While you can refer to the book's location using a 6-dimensional quantity, you *could* do it in 3, by giving its position in space. In a "real" n-dimensional system, you cannot reduce the system to less than n dimensions.

      A good, but less-accessible example, is the state of an object in classical mechanics. The position of an object is 3-dimensional. The state, however, is 6-dimensional: your position (3D) and momentum (3D).

    11. Re:5 dimensions? by eigenstates · · Score: 1

      No no no. There are 10 dimensions:

      http://www.tenthdimension.com/flash2.php

      Chuck is all 10 + 1 because... wait for it... Chuck Norris goes to 11.

      --
      quis custodiet ipsos custodes
    12. Re:5 dimensions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You killed my father! Prepare to die.

    13. Re:5 dimensions? by sdellysse · · Score: 1

      a Sleator reference with chuck norris? interesting....

    14. Re:5 dimensions? by Yokaze · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Is that so? Isn't that slightly sloppy, from a physicists point of view?
      Rotation and spin are another degree of freedom (and, IRC, has been refered to as such by my physics lecturers), but physically not another dimension.

      Mathematically, a Hilbert-space state vector is infinite-dimensional. But physically, it is just a function describing the state of the system in a three dimensional space over time.

      My problem with using such an expression in a PopSci article is, that it is sensationalism. It relies on the common understanding of physical dimensions as (3 x space + X), implying some other dimension besides the well known spatial ones.

      --
      "Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
    15. Re:5 dimensions? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2, Insightful

      is the state of an object in classical mechanics. The position of an object is 3-dimensional. The state, however, is 6-dimensional: your position (3D) and momentum (3D).

      You left our its orientation (3D) and it's angular monmentum (3D) (assuming non-point objects). Hence 12-D at least.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    16. Re:5 dimensions? by x2A · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Rotation and spin are another degree of freedom (and, IRC, has been refered to as such by my physics lecturers), but physically not another dimension"

      Well they kind of are, in that they can't be collapsed into a smaller number of dimensions. If you take rotation of an object, what that refers to in the lower dimensions is the different in momentum of one side of the object to the other. If you do not include that information, to be able describe the object to the same degree of detail, you'd have to include momentum details of two different points of the object (for a single axis of rotation). Collapsing it into a single dimension loses information.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    17. Re:5 dimensions? by x2A · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ya know, reading the actual article (yes, I know) it actually looks like it is 6 dimensions not 5 anyway... as it's 3 wavelengths x 2 polorizations, not 3 wavelengths + 2 polorizations... ie, each colour is used twice, creating 6 virtual colours, ie, 6 dimensions.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    18. Re:5 dimensions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and eHarmony.com

    19. Re:5 dimensions? by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 1

      Heh. I remember working on a bioinformatics problem for a friend of mine that dealt with no less than 9 dimensions. I parsed the data and dumped it into an array that was 9 arrays deep...I'd never done more than 3 dimensions before, and I wasn't even sure it would work. Everyone I showed it to (cs and physics guys) thought it was complete bullshit, but it made the math so hilariously easy...I'm one of those geometry people, so it made sense in my weird brain to apply linear algebra to it.

      Crazy shit. I had several people flat denounce the whole thing as impossible...They refused to believe that the results were meaningful. More than a few people told me that there weren't any practical applications of n-dimensional math, where N>5.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    20. Re:5 dimensions? by PiSkyHi · · Score: 1

      Adding dimensions to make the approximate math less approximate does not make that dimensional analysis more correct

    21. Re:5 dimensions? by Zeussy · · Score: 1

      That is assuming that space is not in discrete units, (which again I guess is a matter of context). In his context it stands as a 6 dimensional discrete unit space (buildings, floors etc), but you have now changed the context which has now changed the dimensions to a 3D contiguous space. I don't really see that as a problem, its just a matter of context.
      Surely momentum could be summed up in 4D with time, so where the object is at different positions over time you could deduce the velocity from that, if you want momentum add a 5th dimension for mass.
      Anyway I am mainly talking out of of my ass, so feel free to slap me down.

    22. Re:5 dimensions? by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      True, I was thinking only simple classical mechanics, which is all point objects (no orientation, no internal angular momentum). On the other hand, orientation is only 2D.

    23. Re:5 dimensions? by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      Anyway I am mainly talking out of of my ass, so feel free to slap me down.

      If you insist.

      Surely momentum could be summed up in 4D with time, so where the object is at different positions over time you could deduce the velocity from that, if you want momentum add a 5th dimension for mass.

      You're perhaps thinking of, "if I have full functions x(t), y(t), and z(t) describing an object's position, I don't need independent functions for momentum, as the velocity is just the derivative of position" -- which is true. But those full functions is a lot of information. What we're talking about here is the information necessary to describe an object's state at a single point in time.

      If you say that the state of an object at time T is determined by its position x(T), y(T), and z(T) and also a later position x(T+d), y(T+d), z(T+d), then you don't need the momentum. (Just let d become infinitesimal, so that you have the derivative of position.) Note though that now you have six bits of information to describe the state of the object at a single point of time -- which is the same number as what I claimed earlier. :-)

    24. Re:5 dimensions? by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      More than a few people told me that there weren't any practical applications of n-dimensional math, where N>5.

      These people clearly aren't good physicists, then, or they forget how many dimensions are used in classical mechanics, quantum mechanics, and Hilbert spaces.

    25. Re:5 dimensions? by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      You're incorrectly imposing the spatial sense of dimensionality on other discussions. What do you mean, "physically not another dimension"? If you mean that spin isn't a spatial dimension, you are correct. Nobody said it was. It is a degree of freedom of an object's state that is completely separable from other components of that state; as such, it's a dimension.

      No, calling n-dimensionality by the label n-dimensionality isn't sloppy.

      Hilbert spaces are by no means limited to describing the state of a system in space over time; that's falsely imposing the sense that a Hilbert space is redundant with positional space.

      Dimensionality is simply the minimum number of variables necessary to completely describe state.

    26. Re:5 dimensions? by complete+loony · · Score: 1

      7. Page
      8. Line
      9. Character
      Though your example is just a different coordinate system that could still be translated into 3D space. The "dimensions" in the article are 3 colours and 2 polarisations. I'd rather call them "attributes" than "dimensions".

      --
      09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
    27. Re:5 dimensions? by gone_bush · · Score: 1

      WRONG, it's x, y, z and lots of alcohol!

      --
      Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one less travelled by. (Robert Frost, 1916)
    28. Re:5 dimensions? by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      A more accessible example might be an object's position in space (3 dimensions), its color, and its temperature.

    29. Re:5 dimensions? by Petrushka · · Score: 1

      I guess I've been accustomed to thinking about larger dimension numbers than 3 or 4 for a long time.

      It's still pretty challenging to play noughts and crosses on higher-dimensional boards, though.

      It can be moderately fun, though. Just note that once your board has more than about three dimensions, you have to stop playing to win by seeing who gets three-in-a-row first, and instead play to see who gets the most three-in-a-rows.

      It's been a while, but I seem to recall that four dimensions was OK for a fairly short game, but five for a longer haul -- that would last a good while, while still not getting too ludicrously complicated. Six dimensions was a bit much, though.

    30. Re:5 dimensions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you use protons instead of electrons, you can get 3 states instead of two ;-) ( hbar, 0 -hbar as opposed to hbar/2, -hbar/2 )

    31. Re:5 dimensions? by Yokaze · · Score: 1

      I don't see, how you lose information.
      If I understood you correctly, you stated yourself, that a rotation around one axis can be considered as mere a sequence of infinitesimal translations in the plane perpendicular to the rotation axis.

      So, you can represent rotation without the need of another orthogonal set of dimensions.
      The problem with such a representation is "merely", that it complicates everything. E.g. you cannot even represent something as fundamental the state of a constant rotation with a constant variable.

      This is why you will always choose the mathematical representation of a 6-dimensional state-vector for solving problems. But what is the physical meaning of that?

      --
      "Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
    32. Re:5 dimensions? by VanessaE · · Score: 1

      I use a similar analogy when explaining dimensions:

      0. a single character
      1. a line of text
      2. a full page of text
      3. a book full of such pages
      4. a room filled with stocked bookshelves
      5. a building with many such rooms
      6. A city with many such buildings

    33. Re:5 dimensions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what about position? This could be a 1 or 2 dimensional quantity depending on layout of bits.

      So actually, this is a 7/8 dimensional storage technique.

    34. Re:5 dimensions? by Savantissimo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In Clifford / Geometric Algebras, which are the correct type of algebras for physics, if there are n dimensions (orthogonal vectors) then there are 2^n degrees of freedom. The grades of the degrees of freedom go by the rows of Pascal's triangle.

      For 3-D that is 1 scalar (for real number coefficients), 3 vectors (x,y,z), 3 bivectors (xy, yz, zx - planes of rotation) and 1 pseudoscalar (xyz - volume). (xy = outer product of x and y, often written x^y. x^y = -y^x)

      In 4-D space-time: 1 scalar (n) - 4 vectors (x,y,z,t) - 6 bivectors (xy, yz, zx, xt, yt, zt -the latter 3 are velocities revealed as rotations)- 4 trivectors - (xyz, xyt, yzt, zxt - the latter 3 are spins) - 1 pseudoscalar (xyzt). ("t" will have a square (inner product, x^2=x.x) opposite in sign to the other three dimensions, usually t^2=1 x^2=-1.)

      Google "geometric algebra tutorial" for more about the physical meaning. It beats the hell out of cross products, quaternions, and many applications of linear algebra and tensors.

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    35. Re:5 dimensions? by pipedwho · · Score: 1

      No, it's five dimensions. X, Y, Z, W and P. Where X, Y and Z are the 3 dimensional position, W is the wavelength, and P is the polarization. If you only considered wavelength and polarization, that would be 2 dimensions.

    36. Re:5 dimensions? by cool_story_bro · · Score: 1

      and objects can only be one of 3 colors, can only have one of 2 temperatures, and can coexist in the same place as another object provided the color and/or temperature differs

      --
      You must wait a little bit before using this resource; please try again later.
    37. Re:5 dimensions? by lazybeam · · Score: 1

      I remember from Engineering classes (10 years ago) reading a table of specifications with a column using the units "m^6". I can't remember much more details, and Google isn't helping. Wolfram Alpha gave me "1 meter^6 = 1 joule squared per pascal squared". I don't have those text books any more and it has been bugging me what the name of that column was!

      --
      --
      no sig for you. come back one year.
    38. Re:5 dimensions? by x2A · · Score: 1

      "If you only considered wavelength and polarization, that would be 2 dimensions"

      No I thought information was stored in the intensity (or rather, reflectiveness) of the light at each wavelength, so horizontal red would give you a range of values, as would vertical red, and so on for the other colours... but no it looks like each colour/polorization combo is storing a simple one or zero, there's no grade. Basically I was thinking of data bits rather than address bits.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    39. Re:5 dimensions? by pandymen · · Score: 1

      As was stated above... "Yes - the dimension of the system is just the number of independent variables, the 3 wavelengths and the 2 polorisations." The article is correct in saying that there are 5 dimensions. The fact that you can make 6 different permutations does not mean there are 6 dimensions.

    40. Re:5 dimensions? by x2A · · Score: 1

      Yes I know what I said, but you're forgetting one... the intensity of the light AT each wavelength AT each angle of polorisation. There's 6 different virtual colours (each virtual colour being a wavelength/polorisation combo), and each of those 6 are able to store a value (although only 1 or 0 by the looks of it, I had originally thought they were using more different levels of reflectiveness). So that's not 6 permutations, it's 64.

      My confusion was over the fact that they were counting the address space dimensions that you need to find any single 1 or 0 (3 x spacial position, wavelength, polorisation -> 1 bit of data), not as I was refering to being the number of dimensions of data that is stored in any one physical location, which is 6, as there are 6 individual bits that can be turned on and off independantly which means it's carrying 6 small values.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    41. Re:5 dimensions? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      ,orientation is only 2D.

      In the space we see all around us, it's 3D. Roll/Pitch/Yaw. Rotation around any of the axes.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    42. Re:5 dimensions? by Pandrake · · Score: 1

      bah. Buckaroo Banzai only needs 8 dimensions to finish brain surgery, rock the house with a trumpet solo, rescue the girl, lead a youth group into battle with a band of misfits, complete groundbreaking experiments, test pilot the vehicle for that very technological breakthrough, piss off the other scientist that went crazy trying to repeat that experiment the first time, establish diplomatic relations with one alien race, and save the world from another. In comparison, Chuck is an amateur who can only beat things up.

    43. Re:5 dimensions? by Jamie+Lokier · · Score: 1

      Well if you want to be picky, you can give it's position in 3-d space as a single number: the distance along a space-filling curve.

      Can you name a "real" n-dimensional system in which this is not possible?

    44. Re:5 dimensions? by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      Aren't space-filling curves valid only for bounded spaces?

      That is, the cardinality of a unit line segment is the same as the cardinality of a unit square. However, the cardinality of a line is not the same as the cardinality of a plane.

    45. Re:5 dimensions? by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      I'd like to know what curve you have that can fill a higher dimensional space...

    46. Re:5 dimensions? by Jamie+Lokier · · Score: 1

      No, all four of your examples have the same cardinality, which is R.

    47. Re:5 dimensions? by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Mathematically, it's entirely accurate, and it's sloppy to equate dimensions only with spatial dimensions.

      An example in computer graphics would be rational b-splines - it's sometimes useful to think of these as being a 3D projection from a 4D space. This doesn't mean I'm being sensationalist and claiming a fourth space dimension exists, but mathematically it is a dimension. As another example, quaternions are a four dimensional object - the set of unit quaternions (which could be represented by the 3D-"surface" of a 4D hypersphere) can be used to represent the set of 3D rotations.

      It relies on the common understanding of physical dimensions as (3 x space + X), implying some other dimension besides the well known spatial ones.

      You mean that we should use the lay person's definiton over the mathematical one? Now that would be sloppy.

    48. Re:5 dimensions? by Jamie+Lokier · · Score: 1

      There are many to choose from and you can easily invent new ones.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-filling_curve

    49. Re:5 dimensions? by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      R is a set. Perhaps you mean |R|.

      Also, jogging my memory with Wikipedia's "Cardinality of the Continuum", it appears that indeed space-filling curves are only valid for finite-sized n-dimensional spaces, not infinite n-dimensional spaces.

    50. Re:5 dimensions? by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      I considered fractals - but given their infinite length, I'm not sure how you would reference a point on them with a single number? The one dimensional distance along the curve, between any two points, would be infinite, surely?

      And given that we're talking about fractals, the concept of dimension becomes more general - the Hausdorff dimension would be greater than the topological dimension of 1.

    51. Re:5 dimensions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about we call them up, down, sideways, sex appeal and peppermint?

  3. Five dimensional in the same way... by Carbon016 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ..that my toaster is four dimensional because I can describe it as "silver".

    This is cool enough as it is, I don't understand why the technobabble was added: polarization and color information layers may be novel attributes of a disc but there's no real reason to describe them as "5-dimensional" other than to sound physics-y.

    1. Re:Five dimensional in the same way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      In this case they were undoubtedly using dimension in the mathematics sense and not the physics sense.

      Also, being able to understand the different meanings of words based on their context is a basic skill of language comprehension. Just saying.

    2. Re:Five dimensional in the same way... by xaxa · · Score: 1

      I don't understand why the technobabble was added

      To make people read the story, i.e. to sell newspapers (or ad views).

    3. Re:Five dimensional in the same way... by GiovanniZero · · Score: 1

      Ever used multi-dimensional arrays? I'm pretty sure they're called that because geeks want people to think that they are masters of the universe...

      --
      Mod me up, mod me down, do your worst you modding clown.
    4. Re:Five dimensional in the same way... by calmofthestorm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To be blunt, your toaster is very much four dimensional if you care about its color.

      In ML we talk about feature spaces having hundreds of dimensions and are just being accurate. The things you care about are the dimensions. Want Euclidean dimension in space? There are three dimensions. Dimensionality of spin? One for each of the quantities.

      If we want to sound smart, we explain the theory behind SVMs and how it's in an infinite dimensional space:-)

      --
      93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
    5. Re:Five dimensional in the same way... by sexconker · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oh please, it's as if I said a byte is an 8-dimensional bit.

    6. Re:Five dimensional in the same way... by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      What's equally odd is that to the layperson I'm sure 'data encoding using differing polarisations and wavelengths of light' means about as much as 'data encoding in five dimensions'. I guess they decided the latter sounds better.

    7. Re:Five dimensional in the same way... by Carbon016 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's clear there's a use of the word that's technically fine but it's misrepresentative to pretty much anyone that's going to be reading the BBC article or this Technology Review site or whatever and all sources claim it wasn't the media making it up. It's pretty easy to post here and imply people are idiots because they don't know more than the popular science definition but then again everyone's an idiot about a great many things.

    8. Re:Five dimensional in the same way... by pitch2cv · · Score: 1

      I don't understand why the technobabble was added: polarization and color information layers [are] no real reason to describe them as "5-dimensional" other than to sound physics-y.

      They're 5 dimensions because they're 5 bits stored in the same nanorod. From what I understand 3 parts of the nanorod react to the 3 respective wavelengths they're using. That, and the 2 used states of polarisation (coaxial and transversal), would give indeed 5 bits per nanorod - in database terms 5-dimensional, but not acutally in "5-dimensional space" indeed. So they are not different physical dimensions at all...

    9. Re:Five dimensional in the same way... by bsdaemonaut · · Score: 1

      Lol or because it was from *Technology* Review.

    10. Re:Five dimensional in the same way... by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      If 5 dimensions is only 5 times as much data stored as usual, then you're right, the term 'attribute' would be more useful.

      However, if each dimension compounds upon each other, then it's certainly worth using.

      For example, a 5D array of say... 10 bits each (10*10*10*10) for what would usually be only 10 bits for the equivalent 1D would be phenomenal.

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    11. Re:Five dimensional in the same way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummh, wouldn't that be 2*3=6 bit?

    12. Re:Five dimensional in the same way... by mazarin5 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A byte is a one-dimensional, eighth-order, array of bits.

      Of course, bits in this context are discrete units of information only capable of providing one of two values. This method is interesting because the "bits" are capable of providing 5 pieces of unrelated, non-interfering, pieces of data. It's perfectly acceptable to refer to it as an orthogonal, five-dimensional datum, regardless of the lack of separation in space or time, and that they are not at 90 degree angles.

      --
      Fnord.
    13. Re:Five dimensional in the same way... by khellendros1984 · · Score: 1

      In a certain sense, a byte is a 1-dimensional bit. A bit itself has 0 dimensions, just like a point in space.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    14. Re:Five dimensional in the same way... by tarpy · · Score: 1

      I had the same reaction. This sounds as if what they're doing is changing a particular location in six separate translations (or degrees of freedom if you like), but what they described didn't in any way involve any physical dimension outside of the 3 classical ones (as far as I can tell).

      However, IANAPP, therefore might not grasp the particular nuances of quantum theory that actually make what they did leap past x, y, and z.

    15. Re:Five dimensional in the same way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, that would be 2+3=6bits. its not two sets of three bits, its three bits (funky light reactions), then an additional two bits (direction pointing). At least I think that, I still haven't rtfa.

    16. Re:Five dimensional in the same way... by byner · · Score: 1

      If it was stored in the same physical footprint of a typical bit, I'd agree.

    17. Re:Five dimensional in the same way... by Ambiguous+Puzuma · · Score: 1

      Can you store a red toaster in the same location as your silver toaster, just because it has a different color?

    18. Re:Five dimensional in the same way... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Is this stored in the same physical footprint of its non-5-dimensional counterpart?

      If so, please describe said counterpart, and tell us why it's not 5-dimensional.

    19. Re:Five dimensional in the same way... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Or you know, it's really just a 3D physical thing in 3D space that they measure various properties of.

      Could I make a CD that records data not as pits but as pits painted with color and say I've gotten more dimensions out of it? NO!

    20. Re:Five dimensional in the same way... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      A bit itself is one dimensional, as it can be two things.

    21. Re:Five dimensional in the same way... by ElKry · · Score: 2, Informative

      And bytes are capable of providing 8 pieces of unrelated, non-interfering, pieces of data. I think you're missing at least one level of abstraction there.

      Also, you got it wrong. Their "bits", as you say, are able to store SIX, not five pieces of unrelated, non-interfering, pieces of data. By using three wavelenghts and two polarization, they get to write six different patterns in the disc.

      What's happening here is that the coordinates to reach those bits are five: x,y,z,wavelength, polarization. That's why someone decided to call it a 5-dimensional space. But again, each single physical storage "node" can store 6 pieces of information. That's unrelated to the 5 dimensions.

      They could use 5 different wavelengths and 4 different polarizations and it would be a 5-dimensional space that can store 20 pieces of information.

    22. Re:Five dimensional in the same way... by tenco · · Score: 1

      3 spacial orientations times 2 wavelengths should be 6 dimensions in k-space. With 2 polarizations you should get two 6 dimensional k-spaces. But that's still no explanation why they say it's 5 dimensional.

    23. Re:Five dimensional in the same way... by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      His toaster is in fact really four-dimensional. Even in the "usual" sense. It has 3 dimensions of space, and exists for a certain range in the dimension of time.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    24. Re:Five dimensional in the same way... by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      In case the laylifeform* is a retard, then yes. Come on. It was a tech site. We are a tech site. And even if not: Wikipedia is just a bookmark away.
      Or don't you learn polarization and wavelengths in early high school (or high school equivalent)?

      * Making everything end in "-person" is just p.c. personism. :P

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    25. Re:Five dimensional in the same way... by SoVeryTired · · Score: 1

      Come on, it's a little misleading to claim that this disk is five dimensional. What they mean is that the data storage mechanism has five degrees of freedom.

      I might as well claim my fingers are five dimensional, since they have five degrees of freedom too.

      --
      Slashdot: news for Apple. Stuff that Apple.
    26. Re:Five dimensional in the same way... by tenco · · Score: 1

      Silly me. Maybe I should have read at least TFP. Well, it's getting late and I'm sleepy. This should have been: 3 wavelengths and 2 polarizations so they have two 3 dimensional k-spaces. Which would still be 6 dimensions and not 5. Yawn.

    27. Re:Five dimensional in the same way... by calmofthestorm · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What about color? What about weight? What about temperature? What about how much Barack Obama likes it on a scale of 1-10 assuming that's defined? All of these are valid features to include in your consideration. Perhaps you only care about two of the spacial dimensions, and it's two-dimensional.

      Time is not automatically a 4th dimension. I really wish that myth would disappear. It's a convenience for visualizing some forms of 4D things (eg, imagining a hypercube as a normal cube that is gradually changing size) but you can visualize it other ways as well. I prefer to think of a hypercube as a cube plus its color.

      Of course, these researchers are totally exploiting that consideration in the population to get fudning. Kind of like how you always add "with implications to homeland security" to the end of proposals, or "the Reds might already have one" in the good old days.

      --
      93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
    28. Re:Five dimensional in the same way... by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      Maybe I underestimate people, but I rarely go wrong by assuming low scientific literacy in the general population. Admittedly I didn't RTFA, I just assumed it was the BBC one I'd read earlier in the day, so I was thinking it was aimed at a general audience.

      I will, of course, also ensure that I use the -lifeform suffix in future to ensure I don't cause any offence to non-person citizens :)

    29. Re:Five dimensional in the same way... by Timmmm · · Score: 1

      A byte *is* an 8-dimensional bit, at least in the mathematical vector sense. Not a particularly useful description of a byte though. And this use of '5 dimensional' is pure marketing bollocks.

    30. Re:Five dimensional in the same way... by x2A · · Score: 1

      "Or you know, it's really just a 3D physical thing in 3D space that they measure various properties of"

      What do you think the 3 dimensions of a physical object are but properties? Is height not a property? Is wavelength of light reflected off something not as important the objects width when describing it? Could you recreate the object exactly with only one of those bits of information?

      "Could I make a CD that records data not as pits but as pits painted with color and say I've gotten more dimensions out of it?"

      If you had more different colours than there were more different depths of the pits then yes, you exactly could.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    31. Re:Five dimensional in the same way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Time is not automatically a 4th dimension. I really wish that myth would disappear

      It only disappears when you enter a singularity. Up until then, the thing we percieve as "time" is more accurately described as a 3-D space extruded into an additional dimension.

      This, however, does not mean that the time is the ONLY thing that makes up "the 4th dimension" but in terms of how our math works, time "is" the 4th dimension. Otherwise that whole relativity thing kind of breaks.

    32. Re:Five dimensional in the same way... by x2A · · Score: 1

      "I might as well claim my fingers are five dimensional, since they have five degrees of freedom too"

      They can store information in multiple places in multiple ways at the same time (address 1,1,1,1,1 could store a 1 while address 1,1,1,1,2 could store a 0), whereas your hand can only exist in one state at any one time. The equivalent addressing would be something like a single dimension (finger number) and the value retrieved could be the % at which that finger is extended... so that's five bits of information addressable by a single dimension, but with a greater range of values stored per digit.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    33. Re:Five dimensional in the same way... by x2A · · Score: 1

      "It has 3 dimensions of space"

      Even that's not really true. It has three dimensions of space occupied (size), it also has three dimensions of space where it's positioned... so, size and position in a 3 dimensional space requires 6 dimensions. I dunno what you'd use your "fourth dimension" for... it's age perhaps (if we assume it exists now)? If we don't assume it exists now, then you'd need two time dimensions to describe it, one for when it was created and one for when it was destroyed. Of course, four dimensions would be enough to describe where to find it, but that's it.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    34. Re:Five dimensional in the same way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's important because, if you can occupy roughly the same number of positions in each dimension, your total number of possible states goes up exponentially with the number of dimensions. Hence, lots of storage.

    35. Re:Five dimensional in the same way... by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      Could I make a CD that records data not as pits but as pits painted with color and say I've gotten more dimensions out of it? NO!

      Well, one more dimension at least. In theory, you could add as many dimensions as different wavelengths of light that you could measure the intensity of.

    36. Re:Five dimensional in the same way... by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      In this case they were undoubtedly using dimension in the mathematics sense and not the physics sense.

      No, it's the correct physics sense as well (hence the term dimensional analysis, which has almost nothing to do with spatial dimensions). It's only common layperson English where the word is normally limited to spatial dimensions.

    37. Re:Five dimensional in the same way... by Hucko · · Score: 1

      If the colour can be translated to information then yes. Say no pit =0, pit=1, blue pit = 2, non-blue-colour=3. We go from binary to quaternary. It then goes to whatever base when it can distinguish between different colours. I won't even get started if it can tell the variable depth to x resolution.

      --
      Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
    38. Re:Five dimensional in the same way... by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Right...and in the REAL universe, where people do REAL science, we have FOUR DIMENSIONS.

      Different polarizations of light DOES NOT CONSTITUTE 2 MORE DIMENSIONS.

      Dimensionality of spin...again does not constitute more dimensions. You need to learn how to stop borrowing words an use better descriptors.

    39. Re:Five dimensional in the same way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about them? They're properties that exist in 3 dimensions. I think you have a serious misunderstanding of what dimensions are.

    40. Re:Five dimensional in the same way... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      So how many dimensions is my car's radio?
      It's marketing bullshit and you know it.

    41. Re:Five dimensional in the same way... by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      So how many dimensions is my car's radio?

      As many as you can make up, though I admit that I can't think of anything reasonable off the top of my head. I'm not sure why you're still stuck on the fact that the word "dimension" is not limited to the three normal spatial dimensions.

    42. Re:Five dimensional in the same way... by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Because it's misleading marketing bullshit to slap in headlines.

      I know full well what a dimension is, but the average person does not. The average person will see "Five Dimensions" and think of some magic voodoo bullshit and will thus think that this is revolutionary.

      It's intentionally deceptive and that's the problem I have with it.

    43. Re:Five dimensional in the same way... by calmofthestorm · · Score: 1

      Sigh. Ok. The following is copy-pasted from wikipedia. And no, I understand just fine what dimensions are;) You're making some assumptions and I'm being anal about calling you out on them;)

      "In physics and mathematics, the dimension of a space is roughly defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify every point within it[1][2]."
      -- Note that SPACE simply means expressing something in terms of various quantities in it, such as three distinct axis for Euclidean space. It is perfectly reasonable to talk about a SPACE of things other than that, or to add a fourth or fifth dimension. All these need to be is components that can be independently modified (for the space itself).

      "Some physical theories are also by nature high-dimensional, such as the 4-dimensional general relativity and higher-dimensional string theories."
      Yes, but if you want to attack string theory I don't know enough to counter you.

      "Perhaps the most basic way in which the word dimension is used in literature is as a hyperbolic synonym for feature, attribute, aspect, or magnitude."
      Of course that's in literature...sort of like research papers...sort of like the topic of this article.

      I know this is a fairly anal correction, but given how much your misconception is a basis of the idea being discussed I believe it worth mentioning. Each storage unit (abstractly) is a point and the number of degrees of freedom (dimensions, essentially) it has, taking into account that there are a finite number of distinguishable values in each dimension . Then multiply by the number of points and you have the number of different possible system states. Take a log base 2 and you have the number of bits you can store.

      For example, if I store data by poking a 1 or a 0 into a 3D space, (say there are 10 different values of x, y, z that we can tell apart), then we can store 10*10*10*2 different values per point, or just under eleven bits.

      Hell, if space is not infinite it becomes possible to express a point's position in terms of a single dimension instead of three. If space is 10x10x10 then I can express location as an integer between 1 and 1000.

      In the end, I concede the most important point of your argument though: that these guys were calling them dimensions to sound smart. We both know that's the real reason. But technically it's still correct.

      --
      93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
    44. Re:Five dimensional in the same way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it is three dimensional because there is only one toaster in that location. Hypothetically your theory is correct, hut not in practice. Unless the laws of physics are defied in the area in which your toaster is located. Or if you have a large toaster and a tiny toaster that fits inside. Though when you take into account that objects are not 0-dimensional, you technically have six dimensions (width, depth, and length are the last three). So classifying with only 3 coordinates is not so precise when objects could be hollow. But the masses don't mind because they would hate to have to remember twice as many ambiguous numbers.

  4. What else has gold, glass and plastic? by rsborg · · Score: 4, Funny
    ... and puts me in another dimension?

    Goldschläger!

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    1. Re:What else has gold, glass and plastic? by TheHerk · · Score: 1

      That stuff is both intergalactic and planetary.

      --
      -Blind faith runs into things.
    2. Re:What else has gold, glass and plastic? by khellendros1984 · · Score: 1

      Awww, I thought you were going to answer the Heart of gold.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
  5. Yawn. by scubamage · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sweet, more vaporware that will never hit shelves for less than $20,000 a disk, if it ever makes it out at all (possibly a hyperbole). Just like holographic storage. While the idea is fascinating that it can store in x,y,z, polarization, and wavelength, I wonder if this will ever lead to anything practical besides a geekgasm at the idea of a 1cm^2 TB thumbdrive.

    1. Re:Yawn. by Red+Flayer · · Score: 3, Funny

      I wonder if this will ever lead to anything practical besides a geekgasm at the idea of a 1cm^2 TB thumbdrive.

      FWIW, I would definitely have a geekgasm at a 1 cm^2 TB thumbdrive.

      Think about, that's infinite storage in a 1 cm^3 bay of thumbdrives.

      Finally, a hand-held (well, desktop when you consider usage) storage device able to store all the porn ever created in the past OR future.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    2. Re:Yawn. by scubamage · · Score: 1

      Ack, nice catch on my exponential folly :)

    3. Re:Yawn. by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      FWIW, the third dimension is generally meaningless when referring to thumb drive size... only the biggest two dimensions really affect our usage. If I hadn't made the same error a couple weeks ago, I wouldn't have noticed it myself :)

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
  6. Storage in the Fifth Dimension... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...can it be the Age of Aquarius?

    1. Re:Storage in the Fifth Dimension... by pjt48108 · · Score: 1

      Thank you!

      If I had mod points, I'd share 'em.

      --
      Mmmmmm... Bold, yet refreshing!
    2. Re:Storage in the Fifth Dimension... by bughunter · · Score: 1

      Either that, or the home dimension of Mr. Mxyzptlk, probably Superman's most annoying foe. Therefore to retrieve your data, you need to write it backwards... and hope it doesn't come back all Bizarro.

      --
      I can see the fnords!
  7. That's freaking kewl! by KiwiCanuck · · Score: 1

    Hopefully, they can get away from glass, and use something less fragile.

    1. Re:That's freaking kewl! by xaxa · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hard disc platters are made from glass. A cube of glass is very difficult to break, and the surface could be protected with a layer of plastic.

    2. Re:That's freaking kewl! by KiwiCanuck · · Score: 1

      Do HDD manufacturers still use glass platters. I thought they all switched to Aluminum.

    3. Re:That's freaking kewl! by Spatial · · Score: 1

      Glass? I've got a few at home and they're all lightweight metal. Granted they're from pretty old HDDs. But wouldn't glass be too fragile, since platters are only a couple of millimetres thick?

    4. Re:That's freaking kewl! by xaxa · · Score: 1

      I don't know, someone else has replied and said manufacturers have "switched to Aluminium". Some drives were definitely glass, since you could shatter the platters, but I haven't broken anything made in the last few years.

  8. Misuse of the word "dimension" by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 3, Insightful
    What they mean is that they can store six different things in the same place.

    That's not the same as having six dimensions.

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    1. Re:Misuse of the word "dimension" by BlackPignouf · · Score: 1

      Look, my comment has 5 dimensions. Wait a moment... "words"

    2. Re:Misuse of the word "dimension" by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      It's not actually misuse of the word "dimension". You're just used to thinking only of spatial dimensions, and other restricted senses of the term.

    3. Re:Misuse of the word "dimension" by canajin56 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nope, they mean exactly what they said. They mean the dimension of the vector space, not the physical dimensions of the material. To identify a bit being stored, you REQUIRE 5 coordinates: X,Y,Z,wavelength,polarity. So, the vector space had D=5.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    4. Re:Misuse of the word "dimension" by niklask · · Score: 1

      What they mean is that they can store six different things in the same place.

      That's not the same as having six dimensions.

      It is not physical dimensions no, but you know, the word dimension can be used in other contexts as well.

    5. Re:Misuse of the word "dimension" by TheKidYo · · Score: 1

      Marty, you're just not thinking 6th dimensionally

    6. Re:Misuse of the word "dimension" by digitrev · · Score: 2, Informative

      You still need five. You can have discrete dimensions. For example, a 12x12 multiplication table is finite and discrete, but still has two dimensions. I mean, technically you can combine the two valued polarity dimension and the 3 valued wavelength dimension to get a 6 valued "light" dimension, but you're just being pedantic. And yes, the word dimension is perfectly acceptable here.

      --
      Cynical Idealist
    7. Re:Misuse of the word "dimension" by lifejunkie · · Score: 1

      >>You can't do that with x, y and z coordinates. Yes you can. If each coordinate axis has a finite number of members, you can actually reduce the dimension to a single space of dimension 1. Index = x + y*x_members + z*x_members*y_members + ...

    8. Re:Misuse of the word "dimension" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't really think I'm being pedantic, given the context in which the word "dimension" is used here.

      You *can't* combine x, y, and z space dimensions in the same way - it isn't possible fundamentally. The way the original statement was phrased made it sound like the new "dimensions" were analogous to the spatial dimensions, which is clearly not the case. It sounded a *lot* like someone trying to hype up the idea by saying "five dimensional". Possibly technically correct if you go by certain definitions, but quite misleading.

      The bizarre thing is that three dimensional itself is impressive, they don't need to exaggerate.

    9. Re:Misuse of the word "dimension" by xandey · · Score: 1

      Well, it's only partially 5. Wavelength has three possible values, polarisation has two, and Z has ten. I would describe it more like encoding six channels per layer... but that's just me, maybe they'll get more layers/colours/polarities.

      I think the article misrepresents the result.

    10. Re:Misuse of the word "dimension" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. A six-valued bit (hexit?) sounds cool until you realize that the extra logic (and load/store overhead) involved in encoding and decoding more than negates a small, constant improvement to storage capacity.

    11. Re:Misuse of the word "dimension" by x2A · · Score: 1

      "a 12x12 multiplication table is finite and discrete, but still has two dimensions"

      Surely they're factors of a single dimension rather than two dimensions?

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    12. Re:Misuse of the word "dimension" by dbIII · · Score: 1

      It's a proper use of dimension in terms of it being a way to describe something. Trek has just rotted everyone's brains with this just as with plasma etc.

    13. Re:Misuse of the word "dimension" by OfficeSupplySamurai · · Score: 1

      But the point is that here it's not really significant to say "five dimensions." You would be just as right to say four, if you go by this definition of dimension. The idea that it is five is purely in the eye of the beholder.

  9. Five? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    3 wavelengths * 2 polarizations = 6, doesn't it?

    1. Re:Five? by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 3, Informative

      X, Y, Z, wavelength, polarization

      Just like how a tic-tac-toe board and a chess board are both two dimensional, despite one having a lot more locations than the other, the number of distinct polarizations or wavelengths this can detect doesn't matter. It's the number of different "things" it looks at.

  10. length, height, and width are three dimensions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    length=x
    height=y
    width=z
    the other two dimensions must be Patty and Selma

    Oops...this just in...The Fifth Dimension apparently has only existed since the 1960s
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fifth_Dimension

  11. Ooohhh! Snap!! by gizmo2199 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yeah! take that Sony. They not only have blue ray, they have blue, yellow and green ray.

    It's a color laser light-show smackdown!.

    Boo-Yeah!!!

    --
    This Sig does not Exist.
    1. Re:Ooohhh! Snap!! by x2A · · Score: 1

      Which is why Sony refer to it as the sting ray... ouch.

      (which I guess would eventually make the blue ray an ex ray?)

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
  12. Another example of improper units. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once again, reporters fail to use standard units. What's this in LOCs? (libraries of congress)

    1. Re:Another example of improper units. by Razalhague · · Score: 1

      I thought that meant Lines Of Code. Hope no one is confusing the two. Talk about unreasonable expectations...

    2. Re:Another example of improper units. by x2A · · Score: 1

      The two can be equal, in perl.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
  13. When can I buy it? by EdIII · · Score: 1

    The team achieved a storage density of 1.1 terabytes per cubic centimeter

    I used to read about stuff just like this in Scientific American in ..... 1993.

    So where are the products? That's what I want to know. Not bashing on the researchers here, but I will be I 70 before I here there is an actual product I can buy?

    1. Re:When can I buy it? by Cryogenic+Specter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You may be mistaken. In 1993 you were probably reading about the amazing gnarly research of storing 700 mb on CD media (what? more than 650!) or the amazing hard drive like 100 mb zip drive! (ooooooh, that is like the SAME size as my hard drive, but it's PORTABLE!) I jest of course. I DO however remember reading about blue ray tech around 1996 though. There have been a LOT of developments like this, but the number one determining factor IMHO has been MARKETING, followed by consumer price.

    2. Re:When can I buy it? by khellendros1984 · · Score: 1

      1993 would've been, what, 500MB 3.5" hard disks? So, 21.74MB per in^3 (1.33MB per cc). 16 years later, we have 16GB of storage in a USB key like this, in 0.081 in^3, for a density of 202,271 MB per in^3 (12,343MB/cc). This new method is about 94 times denser than current flash technology. In 16 years of time, we've had a density improvement around 10000x. You do the math (since I feel like I've done enough for the moment)

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    3. Re:When can I buy it? by slackarse · · Score: 1

      I'm still awaiting this product: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12817424.000-technology-many-holograms-multiply-data-storage.html

      "100 million million bits per square centimetre."

      --
      Come to Australia so we can strip search you and rob you of your internets, pr0n, rights and freedoms.
  14. Watch out while storing on the 8th Dimension . . . by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

    . . . you might hit Buckaroo Banzai on the road.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  15. The hardest part by idontgno · · Score: 5, Funny

    is engineering a read/write head which is bent at 90 degrees to reality in two distinct and orthogonal directions.

    The downside is that a head crash would threaten the integrity of the space-time continuum worse than a Large Hadron Collider mishap and two Star Trek: Voyager episodes all occurring at the same time.

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    1. Re:The hardest part by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Funny

      Christ. I mean, having to sit through one episode of ST:V makes me want to destroy the space time continuum. (Yatta!)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:The hardest part by Spatial · · Score: 1

      Large Hadron Collider mishap and Star Trek: Voyager

      Great idea. Behold, the Omega Particle Collider!

  16. Uh, no... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I have a hard enough time keeping track of my data to have it go time traveling and wandering around the universe like an old TARDIS.

  17. Flux Capacitor can't be far, can it... by rootrot · · Score: 4, Funny

    1.1TB thanks to optical storage in 5 dimensions...3 more and we'll be driving cars through mountains. I can't wait. I just hope the researchers behind this work realize that no mater where they go, there they are.

    1. Re:Flux Capacitor can't be far, can it... by cashman73 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Thanks to this invention, geeks of the future will need a flux capacitor just to view their porn collections! Suddenly, Doc Brown's odd pronunciation of, "1.1 Gigawatts", makes a lot more sense!

    2. Re:Flux Capacitor can't be far, can it... by Ximok · · Score: 0

      Wait, I thought that we stayed still and the mountains moved through US!?!? I need to take that quantum mechanics course...

    3. Re:Flux Capacitor can't be far, can it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1.21 GW - get it right!

  18. If we remember our 2010 dialog... by GPLDAN · · Score: 1

    Dr. Vasili Orlov: What was that all about?
    Chandra: I've erased all of HAL's memory from the moment the trouble started.
    Dr. Vasili Orlov: The 9000 series uses holographic memory so chronological erasures would not work.
    Chandra: I made a tapeworm.
    Walter Curnow: You made a what?
    Chandra: It's a program that's fed into a system that will hunt down and destroy any desired memories.

  19. Definitely not 5 dimensions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Without getting into semantics, I fail to see how using 3 different wavelengths qualifies as three different dimensions. At most they should count as utilizing part of one dimension. Same with polarization being an extra dimension.

    Of course our current communication technologies already use these two properties of light to multiplex signals over the air/fiber, so why not do it with storage as well?

  20. Chump Change by Drone69 · · Score: 0

    For Sale: 1TB 5-dimensional gold nanorod HDD, $999999.97(Wall Mart pricing) Limit 2 per customer.

  21. Five degrees of freedom ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... is not the same thing as five dimensions. Otherwise my arm is a six-dimensional manipulator. I don't think so.

    1. Re:Five degrees of freedom ... by adonoman · · Score: 1

      If your arm can change color and switch between a left and a right hand then it can move through 5 dimensions: x, y, z, color, and handedness. Add in number of fingers and you have 6.

  22. Crap by Misch · · Score: 1

    Crap. Just when I get used to having to work an extra fourth dimensional shift, now I have to pick up work on a 5th dimension?

    When will I sleep?

    --

    --You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
    1. Re:Crap by x2A · · Score: 1

      "When will I sleep?"

      By doing things in different places at the same time, rather than different times in the same place - you are asleep already, a few inches to your left.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
  23. Spinning disks and lasers by moon3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    TA talks about disks etc. Solid state is the future, if I am not mistaken. We can have any number of flash memory "layers" even now... capacity is no longer the most important factor, other parameters like "write speeds" are.

    This should have been tagged "vapor ware". What about the materials involved (gold) ? Re-write ability ? Speed of write ? Speed of reads ? Possible seek times ? How well manufacturing of this scales ? etc.

    1. Re:Spinning disks and lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You are mistaken. We're talking multiple TB per disc here, at gigabit write speeds (you didn't bother reading the article, did you?). Flash competes with things like rewritable CDs/DVDs, whereas these new discs are more around the level of storage of the current $100 1TB hard drive. And no, flash can't be layered arbitrarily many layers deep, due to heat and manufacturing tech limits; but even if it could, it wouldn't get you any real benefit - price would still scale linearly with storage capacity.

      Re: gold, these things aren't made of stacks of gold doubloons or something. 10 layers of nanorods, says the article. That's likely less gold than a single sheet of gold leaf. Maybe about $1 worth. For multiple TB of data.

    2. Re:Spinning disks and lasers by x2A · · Score: 1

      I disagree with your questions (heh) - this isn't a single solution, this is multiple technologies providing multiple solutions. In this instance, they're working together, but they don't have to be. Only by knowing as many different solutions as possible can we be more certain to be picking the best ones.

      "Solid state is the future, if I am not mistaken"

      You may be mistaken... partially... probably. As a replacement for spinning random access media, perhaps, but what about mass distribution where re-writeability isn't important such as entertainment distribution (movies, games) or software, or perhaps that non-rewriteability is important, such as for taking backups, or that software you're about to install hasn't been modified since leaving the publishers?

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
  24. Does polarization really count as a dimension? by s_p_oneil · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Wavelength is definitely a full dimension, as it would be possible to read data at a near infinite number of specific wavelengths. Reading should be easy because you can just pass the light through a prism and check a specific angle of refraction to find the wavelength you need. Writing would be trickier, but it's an engineering problem that can be improved upon over time.

    I'm not sure if I'd call polarization a dimension because there are only two angles you can work with, the angle you start with and the angle perpendicular to it. If you try to use a third angle, data from other two will mix with what you're trying to read. So I would say polarization adds another bit (allowing you to store twice as much), but not another full dimension (potentially allowing you to store orders of magnitude more).

    1. Re:Does polarization really count as a dimension? by Timothy+Brownawell · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if I'd call polarization a dimension because there are only two angles you can work with, the angle you start with and the angle perpendicular to it. If you try to use a third angle, data from other two will mix with what you're trying to read. So I would say polarization adds another bit (allowing you to store twice as much), but not another full dimension (potentially allowing you to store orders of magnitude more).

      But it's completely independent of the other dimensions, so it probably counts. Maybe this is the same sort of thing as the string theory people mean when they talk about extra "rolled up" dimensions, or how the surface of a sheet of paper and the surface of a paper towel tube are both two dimensional even though there are a lot less discrete positions going around the circumference of the tube?

    2. Re:Does polarization really count as a dimension? by Omestes · · Score: 1

      Maybe this is the same sort of thing as the string theory people mean when they talk about extra "rolled up" dimensions, or how the surface of a sheet of paper and the surface of a paper towel tube are both two dimensional even though there are a lot less discrete positions going around the circumference of the tube?

      I doubt it, the string theorists are talking about SPATIAL dimensions, while this is talking of axis of data stored (the terms fail me, someone earlier had them correct, but my brain failed). If you plotted the storage parameters, it would require 5 axis of information. This is different than storing things in a direction orthogonal from those which we are familiar with.

      Not to comment on you in particular, but to /. as a whole; but how can a bunch of so called nerds not know the difference between this use of the term.

      On a quick google, this is a "vector" dimension, or somesuch.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    3. Re:Does polarization really count as a dimension? by x2A · · Score: 1

      "as it would be possible to read data at a near infinite number of specific wavelengths"

      A high number perhaps, but light frequency does appear to be quantized, that being the case it's definitely a finite set.

      The article that appeared recently about the ultra high speed camera, which works with a single wide spectrum pulse, split through space by prism to interact with the object, with the reflections being recombined to a single point, but seperated through time and read by a single photo diode (or whatever), was similarly very interesting, in a dimension splitting/changing kind of way. I bet there's some way of combining the two...

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    4. Re:Does polarization really count as a dimension? by Starcub · · Score: 1

      You are correct, but light can change it's polarization as it travels through any particular medium. Thus you can create light polarized with specific patterns (circular). You can filter out undesired polarizations by controlling characteristics of the medium. Same thing with wavelength -- the characteristics of the substance that makes up the media determine the transparency of the media to any particular wavelength. They seem to be layering the recording medium with material of differing characteristics. So it appears they are recording data at different wavelengths and different polarizations in different layers of the medium. Perhaps, the nanorods are small enough to provide extra dimensional storage capacity in the medium itself when compared to existing media.

  25. So? by Again · · Score: 1

    Yes, but can it run Linux?

  26. Reader / Writer? by Cryogenic+Specter · · Score: 1

    It may store 1.1 terabytes per cubic centimeter but the reader is as big as a room and the writer is as big as your house, but next year they will only be $30 on Woot.

    (silly speculation. Not to be confused with researched facts)

  27. Layers != Dimensions by jonharrell · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Bunch of morons adding up layers and calling them dimensions. "ooooh I have just entered the fifth dimension of my office - er - I mean the fifth floor"

  28. Not another disk by camperdave · · Score: 1

    I wish they'd get away from this whole spinning platter fixation. Mechanical movement was necessary in the days when you needed to induce an electric current from magnetic fields, but we're optical now. Surely we can just build an array of laser diodes and phototransistors on a chip and read the entire surface without moving things back and forth.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    1. Re:Not another disk by x2A · · Score: 1

      With something like a CCD array? Without movement, you could only read as much data as the CCD could hold, so each disc would be fairly limited in size.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
  29. Isolinear chips by jack2000 · · Score: 1

    My hat is off to whomever tagged this as Isolinear chips. You sire, I admire!

  30. Why are the centimeters cubic? by averner · · Score: 1

    Why are the centimeters cubic if there are 5 dimensions? Wouldn't it be quintic centimeters or something?

    --
    Member of the 7 Digit UID Club
    1. Re:Why are the centimeters cubic? by jack2000 · · Score: 1

      I'll give you a hint, it's a different kind of dimension they are talking about...

  31. Parent Off topic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know that your post had absolutely nothing to do with the parent post, right?

  32. I count 6 dimensions not 5 by x2A · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I was wondering how two polorizations of light were being counted as dimensions, as light still needs a wavelength. Looks like each wavelength can store two bits of information, two patterns (see the photo on the article page), by polorizing it at different angles. So horizontal red is one dimension, verticle red is another; they're both used seperately. Hmm... why are they calling it 5? Am I missing something?

    --
    The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    1. Re:I count 6 dimensions not 5 by x2A · · Score: 1

      And (to reply to myself once more) here's my answer http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1239971&cid=28032371

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    2. Re:I count 6 dimensions not 5 by Fungii · · Score: 5, Informative

      Hmm... why are they calling it 5? Am I missing something?

      Yes - the dimension of the system is just the number of independent variables, the 3 wavelengths and the 2 polorisations.

      Think about it in terms of a 1D line vs a 2D plane. In the case of the line there is the less than 0 and greater than 0 regions. When you move up to a plane there are two new greater than 0 and less than 0s (in the y plane as opposed to the x plane of the 1D line, say). So you have 4 possible combinations (or quadrants in the plane) in 2 dimensions.

      Also - note that light which is circularly polarised is both vertically polarised *and* horizontally polarised, so you can have unpolarised red light; vertically polarised red light; horizontally polarised red light and vertically and horizontally polarised red light.

      (Similar to: just red light; red light and blue light; red light and green light and red light blue light and green light)

    3. Re:I count 6 dimensions not 5 by x2A · · Score: 1

      Yar, I originally read it as dimensions to describe the data read from any physical point, rather than addressing dimensions required to locate the data which is what's meant.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    4. Re:I count 6 dimensions not 5 by dissy · · Score: 1

      I've always explained it to programmers this way

      array bit[a,b,c,d,e]

      A 5 dimensional array!

      A B and C represent up/down, left/right, forward/back
      D represents the direction of polarization
      E it seems represents the color polarization (this is the new part to me)

      What would have been concidered one bit on the optical medium, although we have no ranges for those indexes, even if it was 2 that is still a lot more data bits in that one 'old bit' space.

    5. Re:I count 6 dimensions not 5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what language do you program in that isn't case-sensitive?

    6. Re:I count 6 dimensions not 5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I were a scientist I would pick more wavelengths instead of just using three basic wavelengths. What's so special about red blue and green anyway? I mean there are more than three channels on my car radio, and of course the colors don't have to be from the visible spectrum since I'm not using my eyes to read the data.

    7. Re:I count 6 dimensions not 5 by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      There are THREE provable dimensions

      Prove it.

  33. Not a flux capacitor by derdesh · · Score: 1

    You're thinking of an oscillation overthruster.

  34. Meaning by Merovign · · Score: 1

    If words meant things, we wouldn't have this argument twice a week. Unfortunately, it's an unenforceable suggestion - people use words as they please.

    I prefer to think of this as storing something in three geometric dimensions and two buzzword/marketing dimensions.

    As to the time-as-a-dimension thing, was there ever anything so completely wrong? Do things change over time in the second or fourth geometric dimensions? Whoops.

    I have to learn to admit to myself that the dimension discussion, like the "what's a planet" discussion, has become political and therefore entered the realm of the perpetually insoluble.

  35. I use 512 dimensions!!! by woolio · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I got bad news for these people..

    Your ADSL modem transmits on 256 carriers (wavelengths), with each carrier modulating a QAM (2-dimensional) signal. In other words, the modem uses 512 dimensions [not explicitly including time].

    Storage in 5 dimensions? They've got a long way to go.

    1. Re:I use 512 dimensions!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The modem uses 3 dimensions. Wavelength is a single discrete dimension with 256 possible values.

  36. The recorders cost $100... by GottliebPins · · Score: 1

    but the discs cost 6 grand

  37. Obligitory Real Genius Reference by bytethese · · Score: 1

    It is possible to synthesize excited bromide in an argon matrix. Yes, it's an excimer frozen in its excited state...

  38. Optical physics geek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This shit gets me hot. Tell me more about your dimensions...

  39. Lots of Data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok my math might be wrong here but that is about 155 GB on a standard CD. If I remember correctly that is like 3x Blue Ray.

  40. Nope by symbolset · · Score: 2

    These dimensions are length, width, depth, polarization and color. Polarization is not a horizontal/vertical dimension - it's a continuous angle of deviation from an arbitrary line perpendicular to the read/write ray. Color, or wavelength, is likewise a continuous dimension. This is important because increases in the ability to create and read differing angles of polarity and wavelength each give as much improvement as increases in bits-per-millimeter (feature size) in the other dimensions. Twice as many colors? That's twice as much data. Going from horizontal/vertical to 45 degree increments? That's double again. And because the dimensions are continuous there's no physical limit to how much they can multiply data storage capacity, which is different from layers in a Blu-Ray because in that technology there's a limit to how many layers you can have.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
    1. Re:Nope by Fungii · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what you're saying nope to.. I was just using horizontal and vertical dimensions as an analogy because that's the one people are most likely to be comfortable with.

      For polorisation you're mistaken - if you are adding light in 45 degree polorisation increments you won't be adding another dimension because it won't be independent of the horizontal/vertical polorisations you are already using - light can't be both horizontally and diagonally polorised without being automatically verticularly polorised. Length width and depth aren't dimesions of this system either.

      They can add more dimensions by adding more colours, but it's not unlimited. There are only so many colours that the materials they are using can store independently. You could think of it in terms of each of the colours being a harmonic of vibration of the gold nano wires they are using, so like the harmonics of a string usable frequencies are going to run out pretty fast.

    2. Re:Nope by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      You can compare this to Quadrature Amplitude Modulation for radio waves. QAM combines Amplitude modulation with phase modulation (the only two dimensions you can modulate), allowing 2 or more bits per symbol to be transmitted instead of just one.

      This is one of the technologies used to increase modem speeds.

      This shows a rectangular QAM constellation using 2 amplitudes and 2 phases for a total of 4 bits/symbol.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  41. Polarization can be a dimension, but not wavelengt by m.dillon · · Score: 4, Informative

    Wavelength doesn't really count as a dimension for stroage, nor can one store an infinite amount of information by using an infinite number of frequencies. However, polarization could be considered a dimension for the purposes of storage.

    The problem with anything in the frequency domain is that you cannot encode a single frequency without creating a spread which crosses multiple frequencies. This limits how short a pulse one can encode at the desired frequency and how closely one can pack discrete frequencies together to encode different data. Coupled with the noise floor the combination limits the amount of data which can be stored in the frequency domain.

    for example, if you were to look at the fourier transform of a sine wave you would see a single frequency. However, if you were to look at the fourier transform of the sine wave and INCLUDE the lack of a sine wave before and after the sine wave pulse being encoded, you would see a log of bleedover into other frequencies due to the ramp-up and ramp-down times. Any change, such as going from flatline to a sine-wave, will create a lot of harmonics. Harmonics can be reduced (but not eliminated) by using an envelope to ramp-up or ramp-down the operation, but an envelope of course requires the pulse duration to be longer. So the amount of data which can be stored is limited no matter what you do.

    It works a bit differently when one is working in a quantum mechanical domain... in that case it is possible to store discrete information at discrete frequencies, but you only have particular frequencies to work with, typically related to the energy level of the electrons being knocked around.

    -Matt

  42. You've missed the point. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Although this is, as you rightly pointed out, just another yawn-inducing bullshit vapourware story, it's a yawn-inducing bullshit vapourware story from and about Australia!

    Slashdot was hijacked by Australian "editors" some time back in 2006 or so, and ever since there has been at least one (but usually far more) non-stories which have involved Australia in some way or other.

    It used to be that Slashdot was justifiably criticised for being too USA-centric, but those were the good old days. Now we have to wade through piles of shitty Australian flag-waving crap just to find actual worthwhile stories from anywhere.

    1. Re:You've missed the point. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoa!... vitriolic... did your girlfriend run away with an Australian or something?

  43. What we really need by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

    What we really need is an affordable optical backup solution for home and SMB PCs. We haven't really had one since DVD and no, BD is a non starter since Sony cares more about DRM than the PC market. Last I heard you can't even play a BD movie on a PC because of all the DRM. It will end up like Laserdisc which kept a niche of videophiles for many years while Joe Public just went DVD. Here is what we need: It needs to be 100Gb per disc at least, 250Gb per disc would be better. It needs to have at LEAST a 5 year shelf life like even the cheapo DVDs do now, and it needs to be built first and foremost as a PC solution FIRST, and not some media conglomerates DRM wet dream that is passed to the PC later. Finally it needs to be affordable, with burners starting in the $100-$150 range and discs for a buck.

    So if any researchers are reading this, takes those notes down. if you build this we will be happy to back up the money trucks straight to your door and bury your company under so much cash you'll have to buy garbage trucks just to haul it all away. All of the PC builders will be happy to push your product, as handing home users USB drives is still a cringe worthy experience and half the time they manage to bone the backups anyway. With something like this Nero could just add your format to Backitup and home users could just follow the wizard. And make it cheap enough and they can burn more than one copy so if they bone one they still got a good shot of getting their stuff back. Because DVD is no longer viable for back up and with the size of drives changing every day users are gonna end up with drawers full of 200Gb USB drives which may or not spin up when they dig them out to restore. We got too much stuff and not enough places to put them. Solve this problem and you can buy your own island with all the money folks will be throwing at you.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  44. Dimensions by jandersen · · Score: 1

    Just to clarify - what we are talking about here is not spatial dimensions in the popular sense but "degrees of freedom": they have a procedure that takes five independent parameters. Sometimes it would be nice to not see a headline that tries to make a senstational headline out of a simple, down-to-earth matter. I mean, this is a bit like saying "I made a ten-dimensional cake" because it happens to contain ten ingredients; just get real, man.

  45. Re: bit by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    (Some Geek's Grandpa)

    I don't like it, it's not one bit! You know, one day a rottweiler bit me, and left some marks...

    I wonder if data can be stored in the biopatterns of dogbites. You can have teeth shape by breed, bloodloss, pattern of bite, ...

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  46. Wouldn't that be 7-8 dimensions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They've got 3 wavelengths + 2 polarizations. So they can store 5 "things" at the same location on the disc.

    Assuming that the disc is bigger than just a single point, they could add x, y and possibly z to that list.

  47. Re:Polarization can be a dimension, but not wavele by pipedwho · · Score: 1

    Wavelength doesn't really count as a dimension for stroage, nor can one store an infinite amount of information by using an infinite number of frequencies.

    Not true. A coordinate system is not required to be infinite in any or all of its dimensions. For something to be considered a dimension, it needs only be able to represent more than one state.

  48. when r we getting sub keys for this? by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    Can't wait for the usb key market to get a handle on this, and start deploying 1tb usb keys....
    it will make storage hdd obsolete!

  49. Silly question by symbolset · · Score: 1

    Did you read the article?

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
    1. Re:Silly question by Fungii · · Score: 1

      Yes, but not as carefully as i should have it seems..

      So yes you're right about how they are labeling dimensions, but what I was saying about there only being two usable polarisations and a small number of frequencies is still true - it's not really continuous because it's limited by the materials.

    2. Re:Silly question by symbolset · · Score: 1

      One thing I've learned is that our mastery of materials improves with time.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    3. Re:Silly question by Fungii · · Score: 1

      No doubt. I think their choice to label colour and polorisation as continuous dimensions is a little bit misleading though.

    4. Re:Silly question by symbolset · · Score: 1

      Actually, that was me. They reported on what they did. Multi-wavelength light is commonly used in fiber optic communications to provide multiple channels on a single strand. Polarization is a radial angle rather than a hor/vert thing. This is the first iteration. We should not expect everything in the first go.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    5. Re:Silly question by Fungii · · Score: 1

      Actually, that was me.

      What?

      They reported on what they did. Multi-wavelength light is commonly used in fiber optic communications to provide multiple channels on a single strand.

      Yes, but this isn't as simple as that, the nanorods have been designed to respond to a few specific frequencies, optical fibers are inherently transparent to a wide band of continuous frequencies.

      Polarization is a radial angle rather than a hor/vert thing. This is the first iteration. We should not expect everything in the first go.

      I understand what polarisation is.. do you understand what linear independence is?

  50. Spiderman and Rocket Robin Hood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Both Spiderman and Rocket Robin Hood had a lot of trouble with Dementia 5! Do these researchers really believe they can do better?

  51. someone's probably got this down by DRAGONWEEZEL · · Score: 1

    but that's 105 TB on a disk the size of a CD. I don't know about you, but in the Medical field, that's VERY useful. I'm really curious what the read / write speeds are, but there are huge possibilities. The biggest I can think of is disaster recovery backups. No more worrying about multiple servers in multiple locations, just mail Cd's out once a week/month.

    Seeing that writes don't have to be fast, reads just need to be at least X for video, this could have numerous applications. Optical can be much better than magnetic for data integrity if made right. This could really help w/ long term storage of medical data which has crazy 7yr, 10yr, and lifetime limits depending on the type of data. It's a huge issue right now, as many medical facillities in the outlying communities have failing systems, and data loss is basically shrugged off because you can't do much about it.

    --
    How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
  52. Re:Watch out while storing on the 8th Dimension . by BradleyAndersen · · Score: 1

    no, please no! i never wanted to hear that name again, and yet, there it be :(

  53. Re:Polarization can be a dimension, but not wavele by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why not? the goertzel algorythm can tell how much power from a signal is provided by a componing harmonic with a certain wavelength. So for example a yellow beam can be split into two beams of red and green wavelength. So yellow can be counted as a 2 dimensional color. If the wavelengths are different enough the interference between the green information and the yellow information is negligible. And yes those clowns that are calling themselves scientists should know that if three roughly independent beams can be found in the visible spectrum, imagine how many more they could find in an infinite range of frequencies... it's not like we're using human eyes for reading the medium.

  54. What if...Anne Hathaway and Sela Ward fell in love by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    > The material is made up of layers of gold nanorods suspended in clear plastic
    > that has been spun flat onto a glass substrate and multiple data patterns can
    > be written and read within the same area in the material without interference.

    You realize guys like Dr. Doom, Thanos, Darkseid, etc. are so god damned smart they can just invent stuff like this spur of the moment, as the need arises, don't you? >:-(

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.