• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

IBM has figured out how to store data on a single atom

Status
Not open for further replies.
Soon we will be able to store the entire universe.
I've always had a sinking suspicion that all of our mountains and rocks and more are just a natural HDD format we don't know how to read.

Of course that could be all the acid talking.

And probably the shrooms.

Edit: RoyalFool gets it. *high five*
 

RoyalFool

Banned
It makes you wonder what information is already stored in plain sight on a microscopic scale. There is probably some boring old space rock in a museum somewhere that has an entire galaxies wikipedia on it.
 
So it took over 200 years for us to got from the first atomic theory to now storing data onto a single atom. How long until we start storing data on subatomic particles?
 

sans_pants

avec_pénis
I think it was kurzweil(of course) that talked a bit about this, ie once we can turn atoms into computers we basically turn the earth into a massive computer then the solar system then beyond.


I'm sure we won't make it that far as a society but it would be pretty dang cool
 

Ray Wonder

Founder of the Wounded Tagless Children
That kept getting delayed and I don't think it ever came out. Doesn't keep scammers from "selling" it for $20-50.

Yeah, I didn't link the site because I suspected something might be up with that.
 
Jesus, though, how much holmium can there be on Earth? That, and the low temperature requirements are going to put limits on this for a few decades, if this is the way of the future
 

phisheep

NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Hey. I just worked out how to store data on half an atom (on average). Just read presence of atom as "1" and absence of atom as "0".

Suck on that, IBM.
 
Is this better, or at least more practical than storing data in DNA?

A single nucleotide takes uses around 25 atoms from a quick count. Three of those code for 1 amino acid (the combo of three being a codon), or as a stop function, so that's 75 atoms for one function. I don't know enough about binary to know if we can engineer that same mechanism out of 1s and 0s but as another poster said, way more spatially efficient, especially if this Holmium is arranged more like a metal than an organic change.

With 25 atoms of Holmium that offers over 30 million (2^25) combinations, which covers way more than the twenty amino acids in our genetic code. So yeah even like 6 atoms could be engineered to be read like all the codons necessary for human DNA and then some.

Still all academic until you can A) put these atoms together and B) write/rewrite the information as easily as a typical harddrive. Though if that's too tecchy it could still make for an excellent one use only Store everything drive.

Also for fun just crunched the numbers, treating this as a traditional hard drive, and assuming pure Holonium, 1 gram of the stuff gives you 3.65e+21 bits. That's in the zettabit range, which is way more than I can really comprehend.
 

Easy_D

never left the stone age
Is this better, or at least more practical than storing data in DNA?
I mean, at the end of the day, DNA is made up of atoms

Hey. I just worked out how to store data on half an atom (on average). Just read presence of atom as "1" and absence of atom as "0".

Suck on that, IBM.
Wouldn't that require twice as much space with half the storage capacity?
 

thespot84

Member
RIP holmium

Our estimated data production is 44 zettabytes (44x10^21 bytes, or 3.5x10^23 bits) per year by 2020.

A holmium atom, the bits, weighs ~ 2.7x10^-22 grams. That means our annual storage production would need ~100 grams of holmium a year, which costs about $100. (there are 400,000 tons in reserve according to wikipedia)
 

YaBish

Member
Our estimated data production is 44 zettabytes (44x10^21 bytes, or 3.5x10^23 bits) per year by 2020.

A holmium atom, the bits, weighs ~ 2.7x10^-22 grams. That means our annual storage production would need ~100 grams of holmium a year, which costs about $100. (there are 400,000 tons in reserve according to wikipedia)
The more you think about this, the more it makes you wonder about where this tech is headed in the future if we can replicate this in a less stable scenario.
 
Surely any kind of commoditization of this tech would require like... at least a modicum of consideration around how they're going to solve the whole "5 Kelvin" requirement...?
 

FyreWulff

Member
I've always had a sinking suspicion that all of our mountains and rocks and more are just a natural HDD format we don't know how to read.

Of course that could be all the acid talking.

And probably the shrooms.

Edit: RoyalFool gets it. *high five*

It makes you wonder what information is already stored in plain sight on a microscopic scale. There is probably some boring old space rock in a museum somewhere that has an entire galaxies wikipedia on it.

Well, if you think about it, data is recorded into rocks, etc. Just in a different format.

1200px-Quebrada_de_Cafayate,_Salta_(Argentina).jpg


We can see a record of periods in Earth's athmosphere over time, for example. But only humans have found a reason to even 'read' it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom