Am 18.02.2016 um 21:01 schrieb Anthony D. Baye:

>> Careful: As storage space (in the literal sense) increases, area becomes
>> more and more of a limiting factor rather than volume, for two reasons:
>>
>> (1) Obviously, nothing can get in or out of a volume of storage space
>> without passing through the surface.
>>
>> (2) I concede I might be wrong here, but I'm deeply convinced that at a
>> fundamental level information transfer through a region of space is
>> impossible without /temporary storage/ of the information in said space;
>> in other words, information transfer puts a "load" on the storage medium
>> that reduces the effective capacity. And while the "load" for even a
>> single bit of information can be distributed across multiple pathways
>> (thanks to wave/particle duality), this distribution is across an area,
>> not a volume (this should be easy to see if you picture the information
>> transfer as a wavefront traveling through the medium).
>> This sharing of capacity between storage and transfer is demonstrably
>> true for conventional electronic memory, which needs data transfer
>> pathways between memory which reduce the space available for storage
>> cells, but as I said, I'm convinced it is true for /any/ type of data
>> storage.
>>
>> Note that this matches the holographic principle postulated by modern
>> physics, which states that the maximum information capacity of any
>> spacetime region is fundamentally limited by its surface area rather
>> than its volume.
> 
> http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.25.5321&rep=rep1&type=pdf
> 
> I'm not going to pretend that I understand all of it.  I had reason to look it
> up once.

While that's all nice, this paper is just dealing with the topic of how
3D storage is better than 2D storage, and how 3D storage can be
implemented in the first place (proposing a holographic process in this
case); the technology is still far from the point where data
transmission capacity becomes a limiting factor, so the engineers
currently don't bother to even give it any consideration.

Holographic memory /looks/ elegant because there are no /obvious/
transmission pathways within the medium. But on the other hand, there
are no /obvious/ storage locations in there either, and yet the stored
data uses up capacity /somewhere/ (as a matter of fact, it uses up
capacity /everywhere/).

I really believe that there are still /intrinsic/ transmission pathways
that compete with net storage for the capacity of the storage system.

Just like the various 2D images are "spread out" across a 3D volume, and
in this way compete with each other for storage capacity at any point in
space, the data transmission itself is also "spread out" across the same
3D volume, and I'm firmly convinced that in this manner it does compete
with net storage. I expect that as transmission rates increase, it will
become more and more difficult to keep the stored data from degrading.

Post a reply to this message