Slashdot Mirror
IBM Researchers Prove It Is Possible To Store Data In a Single Atom (techcrunch.com)
In an experiment published today in Nature, IBM researchers have managed to read and write data to a single atom. A previous atomic storage technique, as mentioned by TechCrunch, doesn't actually store data in the atom, but moves them around to form readable patterns. "This means that imbuing individual atoms with a 0 or 1 is the next major step forward and the next major barrier in storing data digitally, both increasing capacity by orders of magnitude and presenting a brand new challenge to engineers and physicists," reports TechCrunch. From the report: It works like this: A single Holmium atom (a large one with many unpaired electrons) is set on a bed of magnesium oxide. In this configuration, the atom has what's called magnetic bistability: It has two stable magnetic states with different spins (just go with it). The researchers use a scanning tunneling microscope (also invented at IBM, in the 1980s) to apply about 150 millivolts at 10 microamps to the atom -- it doesn't sound like a lot, but at that scale, it's like a lightning strike. This huge influx of electrons causes the Holmium atom to switch its magnetic spin state. Because the two states have different conductivity profiles, the STM tip can detect which state the atom is in by applying a lower voltage (about 75 millivolts) and sensing its resistance. In order to be absolutely sure the atom was changing its magnetic state and this wasn't just some interference or effect from the STM's electric storm, the researchers set an iron atom down nearby. This atom is affected by its magnetic neighborhood, and acted differently when probed while the Holmium atom was in its different states. This proves that the experiment truly creates a lasting, stored magnetic state in a single atom that can be detected indirectly. And there you have it: a single atom used to store what amounts to a 0 or a 1. The experimenters made two of them and zapped them independently to form the four binary combinations (00,01,10,11) that two such nodes can form.
Richard Feynman's talk discussed manipulation at the atomic level as a target to strive for, demonstrating how much room there is for miniaturisation.
Now it seems that we're going to need to drop to the sub-atomic level for further manipulation.
Ask me about repetitive DNA
Where does this research fall on the Munroe Scale?
https://xkcd.com/678/
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Nah. Sound like we've just made magnetic core memory with holmium atoms instead of iron donuts.
One word: Quarks.
No thanks, I ate at the Klingon place.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
"Kinda hard to get below the atomic level."
That's so old school (really, really, old!). Since then, we've discovered electrons, protons, neutrons, and even more turtles holding them up.
Heck, on a day-to-day basis we transfer info using sub-atomic photons (your TV remote!). The real limit, as far as we know it, would be something at Planck scale.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Think of the amount of data you could store in a single copper BB if the atoms could be used as memory.
Yes, but how much shielding against stray radiation will be required to preserve the integrity of all that data? Not to mention protection against magnetic fields - I imagine it would be pretty easy to induce eddy currents that would provide 150mV worth of potential at the requisite 10 uA to flip a few bits. I'm sure they'll solve such problems, but I think we're a long way from seeing a practical implementation.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
> Think of the amount of data you could store in a single copper BB if the atoms could be used as memory. Holy fuck.
> Ten million Libraries of Congress? 100 million? A billion?
Well -- copper BB's are usually copper coated. Let's assume it is SOLID copper... BB's weigh 5.28 grains at ~6mm; but that is copper coated. I don't remember my density formula at the moment. Let's call it 5 grains.
Copper has a molar mass of ~63.5 g/mol. One mole of an element is defined as 6.022 x 10^23 -- so there's that many atoms in 63.5g of copper. That will give us 9.5 x 10^21 atoms in ONE g of Cu.
Your copper BB storage device would hold roughly:
47,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 bytes.
That's 40 zettabytes or 40 sextillion bytes.
Roughly. :)
Nope. Never once. But I will happily build a robot to take your job. Just business.
Sig for hire.
IBM certainly has a well-earned reputation of being the premier industrial research lab in nanotechnology, but they also have a well-earned reputation for keeping the technology at the grant and publication stage much longer than necessary.
IBM invented the STM, but it was about 15 years before someone else brought one to market. IBM invented carbon nanotube transistors, ran the premier group in CNT research for over 20 years, and then shut it down without attempting to develop a product.
This would be ok, but they've also sucked up a tremendous amount of grant money and investment targeting nanotech commercialization over the last 30 years without actually commercializing any of the technologies they've worked on.
I am a nanotechnology researcher. I know and greatly respect many researchers at IBM. It's disappointing that the company has decided not to participate in developing products using their technologies.
The problem with pocket universes is always laundry. You forget to take them out and then when you open the drier you've got universe smeared all over your clothes.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.