 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
> Am 18.02.2016 um 17:21 schrieb Anthony D. Baye:
> > Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> >> On 2/18/2016 12:18 AM, Anthony D. Baye wrote:
> >>> [...]
> >>> It would be immune to gamma rays and Electromagnetic interference, and if you
> >>> used volumetric data storage, you would probably never run out of space.
> >>>
> >>
> >> That is true. "640K ought to be enough for anybody." ;-)
> >>
> >
> > I get the reference, and understand the concept. However, considering that the
> > theoretical limit for volumetric data storage is something like one bit per
> > cubic wavelength; given a laser with a wavelength of .15nm -assuming my math is
> > correct- you could fit 2.962963e29 bits into a cubic meter.
> >
> > That's something like 3*10^16, or three Quintillion ( a little more, really ),
> > terabytes. Per cubic meter of storage.
> >
> > Three Thousand Billion Terrabytes, plus a few million.
>
> 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.
Regards,
A.D.B.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 18.02.2016 um 21:01 schrieb Anthony D. Baye:
> http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.25.5321&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Also interesting to note:
------------------------------
"The decreasing cost of storing data and the increasing storage
capacities of ever smaller devices have made massive amounts of
information and multimedia available and easily accessible in every
corner of the world. To date, improvements in conventional technologies
-- such as magnetic hard disk drives, optical disks and semiconductor
memories -- have been able to keep pace with the incessant demand for
greater and faster storage.
However, there is strong evidence that these surface-storage
technologies are approaching fundamental limits that may be difficult to
overcome, as ever-smaller bits become less thermally stable and harder
to access. Exactly when this limit will be reached remains an
open question: some experts predict these barriers will be encountered
in three years, while others believe that conventional technologies can
continue to improve for at least five more years."
------------------------------
That was in early 2001. It hasn't beem three, nor five, but /fifteen/
years since then, and storage capacity per area still keeps increasing
in both magnetic hard drive and semiconductor memories. (Optical media
not so much, but this may be mainly due to a decline in demand.)
What hasn't kept up with the trend is data transfer performance. Main
RAM latency has been virtually stagnant for about a decade, and
bandwidth of any type of established storage medium has also been
increasing far slower than capacity.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/16/2016 1:01 PM, Nekar Xenos wrote:
> Would it be possible in the future to turn the Moon into a supercomputer?
> I am thinking along the lines on sending self replicating nanobots to the Moon
> that start replication when on the moon and combining to form a supercomputer.
> Apparently there is a lot of iron and silicon in the Moon's composition. Maybe a
> theme for a science fiction novel...
>
>
>
> -Nekar Xenos-
>
I think in the future the Moon will be listed on the National Register
of Historic Places.
Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 02/18/2016 01:18 AM, Anthony D. Baye a dit:
> used volumetric data storage, you would probably never run out of space.
Don't underestimate the power of _big_ lolcats vidz ;)
--
*wip* http://la.buvette.org/vrac/essai.avi *wip*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2016/02/18 10:10 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 17-2-2016 18:40, Nekar Xenos wrote:
>> On 2016/02/17 10:24 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> On 17-2-2016 5:21, Nekar Xenos wrote:
>>>> Le_Forgeron <jgr### [at] freefr> wrote:
>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>> Hash: SHA256
>>>>>
>>>>> Le 16/02/2016 19:12, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
>>>>>> On 16/02/2016 06:01 PM, Nekar Xenos wrote:
>>>>>>> Would it be possible in the future to turn the Moon into a
>>>>>>> supercomputer? I am thinking along the lines on sending self
>>>>>>> replicating nanobots to the Moon that start replication when on
>>>>>>> the moon and combining to form a supercomputer. Apparently there
>>>>>>> is a lot of iron and silicon in the Moon's composition. Maybe a
>>>>>>> theme for a science fiction novel...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're going to need a power source for that.
>>>>>>
>>>>> what is a 24/7 sun ? (excepted for a few eclipse once every few
>>>>> months; only the ones due to the earth hiding the sun)
>>>>>
>>>>> no atmosphere to diffuse the light, every spot get light along the 28
>>>>> days.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Someone is not used to the idea of a sun ;->
>>>
>>> There is some controversy about it in another thread ;-)
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am also considering taking it underground and using some form of
>>>> geothermal
>>>> energy. Obviously it would need to use a lot of energy for cooling as
>>>> well.
>>>
>>> Not much geothermal (selenothermal might be a more appropriate term)
>>> energy present I am afraid. Contrary to Earth, the Moon does not have a
>>> hot mantle and only a small core, partly molten.
>>
>> So if the nanobots were to convert as much of the mantle as possible
>> into a computer, it should get close enough to the core for
>> "selenothermal" energy?
>>
>
> I wonder. You would make the Moon shrink, wouldn't you ? And a smaller
> Moon....
>
The idea is to use self replicating nanobots that use the Iron and
Silicon in the moon to build this computer. The ideal situation would be
to build it in a way that doesn't expel any matter from the Moon nor
shrink nor enlarge it. This might be a problem concerning cooling. Some
say there are many types of glass on the moon, so maybe a photonic
computer would be a good idea if it doesn't get as hot as the Iron and
Silicon computer.
-
I still need to get used to Thunderbird. I keep replying directly to
messages instead of the group :P
--
________________________________________
-Nekar Xenos-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/19/2016 1:19 PM, tth wrote:
> On 02/18/2016 01:18 AM, Anthony D. Baye a dit:
>
>> used volumetric data storage, you would probably never run out of space.
>
> Don't underestimate the power of _big_ lolcats vidz ;)
>
>
Interesting. :-) What is the back story?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 20.02.2016 um 10:30 schrieb Stephen:
> On 2/19/2016 1:19 PM, tth wrote:
>> On 02/18/2016 01:18 AM, Anthony D. Baye a dit:
>>
>>> used volumetric data storage, you would probably never run out of space.
>>
>> Don't underestimate the power of _big_ lolcats vidz ;)
>>
>>
> Interesting. :-) What is the back story?
They eat not only every Cheezeburger they can get their paws on, but
also every bit of unused storage space ;)
(And yes, that does include your attic ;))
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2/21/2016 7:38 AM, clipka wrote:
> Am 20.02.2016 um 10:30 schrieb Stephen:
>> On 2/19/2016 1:19 PM, tth wrote:
>>> On 02/18/2016 01:18 AM, Anthony D. Baye a dit:
>>>
>>>> used volumetric data storage, you would probably never run out of space.
>>>
>>> Don't underestimate the power of _big_ lolcats vidz ;)
>>>
>>>
>> Interesting. :-) What is the back story?
>
> They eat not only every Cheezeburger they can get their paws on, but
> also every bit of unused storage space ;)
>
> (And yes, that does include your attic ;))
>
Right. Thanks for that.
My best guess was it was a surreal post-apocalyptic view into the future.
Hmm! It reminds me to keep up with popular culture. :P
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
