On 2016/02/18 11:13 PM, clipka wrote:
> 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.
>


I think 2d would be better in terms of cooling.
Whatever the limits are I would simply have clusters of computers 
networked like servers if I understand the problem correctly.

-- 
________________________________________

-Nekar Xenos-

Post a reply to this message