Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 09:33:49 01/24/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 24, 2005 at 12:04:56, Dieter Buerssner wrote: >On January 24, 2005 at 11:53:38, Dann Corbit wrote: > >> It might require the square of that (so 50,000*50,000 acres). > >Dann, think again about this :-) Also, assume for a moment, you had given the >area in square miles instead of acres. Now square that area, or in square light >years - you will come to the conclusion, that almost no space at all will be >needed ... . And of course, if you square an area, you don't have an area >anymore, but rather something with dimentsion length^^4. Actually, a cube is a very good idea. The particular substance I described for storing data is a doped crystal (rather inexpensive too). It is the same thing that is used for dosimeters for people who walk around in nuclear reactors. When ionizing radiation strikes the crystal, it leaves tracks that can be measured. Using this principle, they are able to record a terrabyte in one square centimeter. Interesingly, you can read the whole crystal at once with CCDs. Now, suppose that we record in layers so that really we record data in 3 dimentions. Instead of a terrabyte per square centimeter, we may get 1e36 bytes per cubic centimeter. Now, suppose that we have some kind of loss with a factor of one million. That would mean 1e30 bytes per cubic centimeter. A cubic meter of this crystal could store an awful lot of information. Specifically, 1e90 bytes. So anything is possible, if we put our minds to it.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.