x404.co.uk
http://www.x404.co.uk/forum/

2.2 petabytes per gram
http://www.x404.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=18153		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  JJW009 [ Thu Jan 24, 2013 1:54 pm ]
Post subject:  2.2 petabytes per gram
http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/01/ ... -per-gram/

They're talking about very long term storage in DNA, 50 - 5000 years. One benefit is that:

Quote:
the actual physical storage of information won't change if DNA is used, even if we end up using different methods to synthesize or read out the molecule's contents. And life on Earth will always ensure that whatever we need to manipulate it will always be available to us. In other words, if we're ever not able to read the information in DNA, then we've got bigger problems than having lost some data.


It's the access times that bother me. Although faster methods of scanning may be possible in the future, at the moment we rely on chemistry. These reactions can't be rushed too much, so read times are likely to be hundreds if not millions of times slower than magnetic or optical media. However, this may not be a problem for the sort of data archiving they're talking of.
Author:  paulzolo [ Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 2.2 petabytes per gram
I have always been worried about how long those Instagram pictures of cats will be around for. I feel slightly more rested now.
Author:  jonbwfc [ Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 2.2 petabytes per gram
paulzolo wrote:
I have always been worried about how long those Instagram pictures of cats will be around for. I feel slightly more rested now.

By the sound of it, in the future instragram pictures of cats will actually be stored on cats.
Author:  Amnesia10 [ Thu Jan 24, 2013 5:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 2.2 petabytes per gram
jonbwfc wrote:
paulzolo wrote:
I have always been worried about how long those Instagram pictures of cats will be around for. I feel slightly more rested now.

By the sound of it, in the future instragram pictures of cats will actually be stored on cats.

Will cats become fully portable media or do you have to start worrying about your data wandering off?
Author:  soddit112 [ Thu Jan 24, 2013 6:33 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 2.2 petabytes per gram
Amnesia10 wrote:
jonbwfc wrote:
paulzolo wrote:
I have always been worried about how long those Instagram pictures of cats will be around for. I feel slightly more rested now.

By the sound of it, in the future instragram pictures of cats will actually be stored on cats.

Will cats become fully portable media or do you have to start worrying about your data wandering off?


*looks at cat, then at USB cable* so where do i plug this in?
Author:  JJW009 [ Thu Jan 24, 2013 6:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 2.2 petabytes per gram
soddit112 wrote:
*looks at cat, then at USB cable* so where do i plug this in?

Being serious, it's going to be a very long tim before you have a DNA drive in your house. I imagine for now the <s>cats</s> DNA will be stored in a data centre with a laboratory, and you'll have to send your data request by email and wait for the results in the post.
Author:  Fogmeister [ Thu Jan 24, 2013 7:08 pm ]
Post subject:  2.2 petabytes per gram
I wonder what the maximum storage capacity is for matter?

If you could build a chip that was made of single atoms (say carbon) and you could create it so that each atom has an on or off state. What is the capacity of it per weight?

Given that 1 mol or carbon weighs 12 grams. 1 mol contains Avogadro's number of atoms which is... 6.02 x 10^23.

That many bits is equal to...

6.7 x 10^7 petabytes.

That's 67,000,000 petabytes.

Which is 5,500,000 petabytes per gram.

Lol! That's quite a bit then :-D
Author:  jonbwfc [ Thu Jan 24, 2013 7:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 2.2 petabytes per gram
Fogmeister wrote:
I wonder what the maximum storage capacity is for matter?
If you could build a chip that was made of single atoms (say carbon) and you could create it so that each atom has an on or off state. What is the capacity of it per weight?
Given that 1 mol or carbon weighs 12 grams. 1 mol contains Avogadro's number of atoms which is... 6.02 x 10^23.
That many bits is equal to...
6.7 x 10^7 petabytes.
That's 67,000,000 petabytes.
Which is 5,500,000 petabytes per gram.
Lol! That's quite a bit then :-D

You could theoretically go smaller than that. All subatomic particles have spin which, effectively, means 1 or 0 (clockwise or anticlockwise). However, our current understanding of the universe is that the state of any particle's spin is 'fuzzy' and in any case observing the spin would change it. If we could overcome these limitations, you could store several bytes of information on one carbon atom.
Quantum data storage. Very Star Trek.
Author:  Fogmeister [ Thu Jan 24, 2013 7:14 pm ]
Post subject:  2.2 petabytes per gram
Yeah, I was thinking of going sub-atomic or quantum but then Heisenberg kind of breaks it all.

Lol!
Author:  jonbwfc [ Thu Jan 24, 2013 7:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 2.2 petabytes per gram
Fogmeister wrote:
Yeah, I was thinking of going sub-atomic or quantum but then Heisenberg kind of breaks it all.

Lol!

Yeah, if we could just figure out how to break the Uncertainty Principle, we'd be rocking :).
Author:  JJW009 [ Thu Jan 24, 2013 8:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 2.2 petabytes per gram
jonbwfc wrote:
Fogmeister wrote:
Yeah, I was thinking of going sub-atomic or quantum but then Heisenberg kind of breaks it all.

Lol!

Yeah, if we could just figure out how to break the Uncertainty Principle, we'd be rocking :).

Don't knock it, there is actually some progress of a kind. It's kind of like looking at somebody out of the corner of your eye so they don't notice you're looking. I read it in New Scientist or similar last week.
Author:  Amnesia10 [ Thu Jan 24, 2013 8:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 2.2 petabytes per gram
Fogmeister wrote:
I wonder what the maximum storage capacity is for matter?

If you could build a chip that was made of single atoms (say carbon) and you could create it so that each atom has an on or off state. What is the capacity of it per weight?

Given that 1 mol or carbon weighs 12 grams. 1 mol contains Avogadro's number of atoms which is... 6.02 x 10^23.

That many bits is equal to...

6.7 x 10^7 petabytes.

That's 67,000,000 petabytes.

Which is 5,500,000 petabytes per gram.

Lol! That's quite a bit then :-D


So to send petabytes of data just put the cat in a box and mail it to destination. Though I guess if you had a cat with one movie encoded in its DNA and another cat with another movie in its DNA you could theoretically do mash ups very easily. :D
Author:  timark_uk [ Thu Jan 24, 2013 8:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 2.2 petabytes per gram
Fogmeister wrote:
I wonder what the maximum storage capacity is for matter?

If you could build a chip that was made of single atoms (say carbon) and you could create it so that each atom has an on or off state. What is the capacity of it per weight?

Given that 1 mol or carbon weighs 12 grams. 1 mol contains Avogadro's number of atoms which is... 6.02 x 10^23.

That many bits is equal to...

6.7 x 10^7 petabytes.

That's 67,000,000 petabytes.

Which is 5,500,000 petabytes per gram.

Lol! That's quite a bit then :-D
Why do you have to do this, Oliver? Why? (8+(

Mark
Author:  pcernie [ Fri Jan 25, 2013 8:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: 2.2 petabytes per gram
Cats are evil and should not be given data, that's a feline Skynet right there :shock:
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/