Infinite harddisk is possible?

Originally posted by sardion2000
A. Tiny Gas Turbines equal Extremely Tiny Efficiency.
B. It's a Combustion based Technology and thus emits Carbon Monoxide.
C. It adds more moving parts when we should be headed in the other direction.
D. It adds more heat dissipation issues.

Well I would agree with the toxic sides of monoxide, but we are talking tiny tiny amounts, though any production of carbon monoxide is not good, there is a few catalysts that may be able to cut the emissions down some what.

Although turbines may not be very efficient at energy conversion, at this scale it is possible to vastly increase efficiency with better use of materials with far less friction, even next to non in the case of super cooled semi-conductors.

Time will tell, but I can see a time within the next 20 years when a semi-conductor is developed that works at room temp, greatly increasing the usefulness of any nano tech.

I couldn't disagree more about the moving parts aspect. Are you say you disagree with the whole principle of nano tech??

I agree heat is an issue with gas turbine tech, however there are a number of ways that we could over come this such as the following

PACKAGE EMBEDDED HEAT EXCHANGER

It makes sense for say a Military/Medical unit that needs reliability.

Absolutely correct.. it's the very first application of this tech

Ethanol FC looks promising, though only if battery/capacitor technology remains stagnant.

Don't know much about Ethanol FC... A brief web search looks promising.

My vision of the computer of the future is probably a lot different then yours.

Just imagine a sheet of paper with the processing power of BlueGene... I can't, but considering how far we've come in the last 50 years, I wouldn't bet against such a possibility..

Well our tech would be very stagnant if we didn't pool all our idea's. It is good that people have different opinions about tech, it is the very idea's themselves that shape and create our future.

Personally I believe that the processing aspect of computers will be centralised. There won't be any computation to be done by the device per se, it would be all handled through a central quantum computer and the device you use simply a way of interfacing with this bank.

Storage of information will be shared across the globe. You won't have an entire document on your device, since the bits would be scattered across what ever devices exist. When you want to read the document, it would simply reconstruct it in exactly the same way a peer-2-peer network does.

This is my vision of where computers are going.

Remember, once we start engineering features under 0.1 microns, weird things start to happen as different forces start to dominate over familiar ones. Such a weird and seemingly contradictory world will require us to rethink a lot of things.

This is something I know quite a bit about since it's my field of research

Photon Traps and Quantum Cryptography are a couple of the techniques currently being used today, tomorrow we shall see banks upon banks of Qbits working together to form the ultimate in processing power.

All the best,

NeoN HaZe.


[edit on 4-12-2006 by Neon Haze]

I couldn't disagree more about the moving parts aspect. Are you say you disagree with the whole principle of nano tech??

No, I disagree with Friction. When I talk about "moving parts being bad" I'm thinking in the Classical sense, not the Quantum sense.

Van Der Waals as you know is a completely different beast.

This is something I know quite a bit about since it's my field of research

This is also going to be my field of research soon.

Currently taking Nanotechnological Engineering, 1st year.

Personally I believe that the processing aspect of computers will be centralised. There won't be any computation to be done by the device per se, it would be all handled through a central quantum computer and the device you use simply a way of interfacing with this bank.

Oh, wouldn't Governments and Corporations love this.

I would not.

Also, you're not taking into account that a Centralized infrastructure will just make it vulnerable to Natural Disasters and Terrorism.

I do see a huge opportunity for P2P grid-like mesh networks however where some of the elements you discuss become standard, I just don't see everybody giving up control over their personal data like that to huge Corporations and/or Governments. I can see how the Corporate world would go for this in their day to day business. Sort of like Outsourcing cpu cycles & data-storage.

A more Robust system would be to distribute processes in chunks much like Seti and only a Centralized "routing" computer will be used for intensive applications, like maybe Virtual Reality or something along those lines, otherwise it will just be ad-hoc between Turing Machines rather then Dumb Machines with a Central server.

I agree heat is an issue with gas turbine tech, however there are a number of ways that we could over come this such as the following

I'm aware of those methods, but my question is, will the molecular walls be strong enough to contain such a confined explosion? Can you even make it small enough to eliminate friction and still contain an explosion?

Deformation at the nanoscale is a rather sticky problem(pun intended ).

[edit on 4-12-2006 by sardion2000]

Originally posted by Ekkavit
Just the thought,I think it's possible.

Infinite is exist in the principle.
As counting number to the infinite number that exist, but the reality,I can't reach to it.

So,there must be a way to create it in the future.

A Turing Machine utilises an infinite hard disk, but this is only an ideal.

Just remember that to use an infinite hard disk completely requires an infinite amount of time to format/use it, so as a realistic device its unworkable.

Originally posted by DJMessiah

Originally posted by RedDragon
if you had a hard drive that could go back in time and alter its data i guess it could have infinite space.

Wouldn't that just be the same as erasing a file and replacing it with another in current time?

In 1999, scientists estimated that all of human knowledge takes up 12.5747 exabytes (EB) of space, if ever transfered to a HD.

yeah but if you need the file you already deleted, you just go back in time and access it =)

Originally posted by apex
No, it's infinite density I think, and also infinite weight perhaps, but not infinite mass. The actual mass of the singularity is that of the object which formed the black hole.

Incorrect. Like I said earlier, the normal laws of physics do not apply to black holes, so indeed, infinite mass is attainable in a black hole.

"The “star” then collapses to a black hole—a singularity, or point of zero volume and infinite mass, hidden by an event horizon at a distance called the Schwarzschild star"

www.britannica.com...

[edit on 4-12-2006 by DJMessiah]

Originally posted by DJMessiah

Black holes have infinite mass and infinite weight only at the center (after the outer shell).

[edit on 4-12-2006 by DJMessiah]

But this part is only something we theorize about, we know very little about black holes, no matter how much we claim to know. For all we know that isn't true, and all of energy and matter it sucks up go somewhere else (like another universe or something). It also might just burn the energy and mass into a new form of energy that we cannot yet measure, who knows.

What i'm getting at is, we can't talk about these things with such certainty just yet.

Actually all the matter and energy that gets sucked up eventually evaporates in the form of Hawkwing Radiation. The Black Hole-White Hole Hypothesis has been left alone for a long time that it's unlikely that it is the correct answer.

Incorrect. Like I said earlier, the normal laws of physics do not apply to black holes, so indeed, infinite mass is attainable in a black hole.

Actually that IS incorrect. Our "laws" of Physics break down when trying to model Black Holes because we have not reconciled GR with QM. It's not that the "Normal" Laws of Physics don't apply, we just haven't found the "Real" Unified Universal Laws of Physics as of yet. In Physics, an answer that state Infinity is usually wrong.

[edit on 4-12-2006 by sardion2000]

Originally posted by sardion2000
Actually that IS incorrect. Our "laws" of Physics break down when trying to model Black Holes because we have not reconciled GR with QM. It's not that the "Normal" Laws of Physics don't apply, we just haven't found the "Real" Unified Universal Laws of Physics as of yet. In Physics, an answer that state Infinity is usually wrong.

Loop Quantum Gravity explains black holes...



Essentially a black hole is an area of space with a vast number of densely packed and complex braids.

Since braids are in fact just twisted space, in LQG it is not the mass as such that causes a black hole. LQG explains that black holes are caused when the total surface area of the space gigantic in proportion to it's dimension, causing space to warp around it.

Black holes are caused by space density.

Loop Quantum Gravity also goes a long way to explaining Dark Energy and Matter. Dark matter is simply space density and dark energy is caused by the universal law of everything - reductionism and equality.

If you want to learn more about LQG check the following

Finally an answer to EVERYTHING - Quantum Field Gravity - BRAIDS

All the best,

NeoN HaZe.

[edit on 5-12-2006 by Neon Haze]

infinate space no but they are working on a cubed type hd that can store multiple terabytes.

Therefore, IBM has indicated that it will attempt to build by the end of
this year, a 32 Terabyte storage system out of a 3x3x3 array of 27 small,
relatively simple hard disk modules, which it refers to as 'collective
intelligent bricks'.

Eventually we'll probably be able to store data across dimensional boundries. So technically, the storage "capacity" would be infinite. Hard drives will have long been abandoned at this point, though.

Oh, and I think the only infinite aspect of a black hole is the relative distance from the event horizon to the singularity.

Is Quantum Loop Gravity Falsifiable? Has any part of it been confirmed?

Originally posted by sardion2000
Is Quantum Loop Gravity Falsifiable? Has any part of it been confirmed?

I take great pleasure in saying yes. We have an accurate mathematic model for braids that describe the properties of sub atomic particles including Mass.

LQG has the definitive answer to what mass is and what causes it.

If you read through the braids thread I point to the evidence.

If you like, space itself is the ultimate medium by wich to record data.

All the best,

NeoN HaZe.



[edit on 5-12-2006 by Neon Haze]

maybe god wanted us to realize the mathematics is not the way of the world because from mathemetics, we derive the word infinity, but infinity does not exist in the physical world and thus we could question the rest of our theories. I think we need to find something beyond Mathematics, We must find out a way to create a closed circle circuit of somesort that can use the world and outspaces energy so that it can constantly pull in energy and put use to it. Let's use the geniuses of the world and make them figure this out as a life project, maybe well get some more revolution in technology.

I have a basic theory.
Just compares the infinite hard disk to the universe that expanding all the time.
The universe is infinite.(It's expanding.)
And since we don't know what Big Bang came from.How could we create such an infinite hard disk.

So,If god made Big Bang,why don't we apply the QM to make a new small universe that infinite in a finitely physical hard disk.


It may be too unrealistic and ignorant,but just the simple idea came with open mind.

Originally posted by sardion2000
A. Tiny Gas Turbines equal Extremely Tiny Efficiency.

B. It's a Combustion based Technology and thus emits Carbon Monoxide.

C. It adds more moving parts when we should be headed in the other direction.

It makes sense for say a Military/Medical unit that needs reliability.

A. Efficiency is not power. Efficiency is the measure of work performed versus power used.

B. Combustion only emits carbon if there was already carbon in the mix. Such as wood, and most natural combustion.

C. Moving parts aren't always a bad thing. In robotics we often find that the longest lasting solution is a physical one. Electronic controlls have a habit of burning out faster than the mechanical alternative.

I've heard of library's being put on a little disc. I think a infiniti hardisk or for practicaly terms maybe 9999tergigs of information. That would be infinite considreing how much we use.

A. Efficiency is not power. Efficiency is the measure of work performed versus power used.

I'm quite aware of that, but as I've outlined above my vision of the future mobile computer won't need that much power. As for my efficiency comment, think about it like this. If a million people were using this technology to power their laptops the amount of fuel it would take power all them of those units will vastly outstrip the amount used in a centralized power infrastructure and transmitted to your socket solely because of the intrinsically high energy efficiency of huge power plants.

B. Combustion only emits carbon if there was already carbon in the mix. Such as wood, and most natural combustion.

So you are saying that burning Hydrocarbons will produce Carbon Emissions. Wow. I would have never come up with that myself.

Let me guess, you're answer is the ever more energy intensive Hydrogen, am I correct?

C. Moving parts aren't always a bad thing. In robotics we often find that the longest lasting solution is a physical one. Electronic controls have a habit of burning out faster than the mechanical alternative.

We're talking about a Gas Turbine engine. It will create lots of noise and heat, which are already issues in computing today.

[edit on 8-12-2006 by sardion2000]

[edit on 9-12-2006 by sardion2000]

My 2 Cents!

Warning What I have to say has 0..nil/no scientific evidence!

This is a Hunch with no Scientific
Evidence!

Technology will find a way to Store/Retrieve Information from Crystals...
This will happen in no less than 50 years (again a hunch) no prediction

Then humanity will be in for a ride!

My 2 Cents (found on the street)



[edit on 12/10/2006 by a1ex]

Originally posted by a1ex
Technology will find a way to Store/Retrieve Information from Crystals...
This will happen in no less than 50 years (again a hunch) no prediction

This is feasible, as it would be possible to store data in terms of Quantum Spin.

Since crystal is a very dense form of matter, it would be the logical choice for any quantum spin storage medium.

A Quantum (Computer) Step: Study Shows It's Feasible to Read Data Stored as Nuclear 'Spins'

Details of the Experiment

The researchers used a piece of silicon crystal about 300 microns thick - about three times the width of a human hair - less than 3 inches long and about one-tenth of an inch wide. The silicon crystal was doped with phosphorus atoms. Phosphorus atoms were embedded in silicon because too many phosphorus atoms too close together would
interact with each other so much that they couldn't store information. The concept is that the nuclear spin from one atom of phosphorus would store one qubit of information.

Source: www.physorg.com...

I guess we should all follow our hunches more often

All the best,

NeoN HaZe


[edit on 11-12-2006 by Neon Haze]

I agree with Dunkindonuts last sentence.

Even if we were to store all known information on 'disk' at what point do we gauge infinite.??

It would take sooooooo long for us to actually sort the data and report back how much there actually is - it truly would be percieved as infinite anyway.

It is always hard to articulate infinity - because we can never confirm it in our finite lifetimes.

Seeing what is available in the lastest SAN models for business I can tell you TB's(terrabytes) is the new megabyte and storage has never really been a problem, its the controllers that make it all worthwhile.

Like the old saying 'power is nothing without control'.

Neon, I dig reading your posts

I can't wait to feed my hard disk a steak to grow