Slashdot Log In
Researchers Store Optical Data In Five Dimensions
Posted by
timothy
on Wed May 20, 2009 03:50 PM
from the don't-forget-time dept.
from the don't-forget-time dept.
Al writes "Researchers from Swinburne University of Technology in Victoria, Australia, have developed an optical material capable of storing information in five dimensions. Using three wavelengths and two polarizations of light, the Australian researchers were able to write six different patterns within the same area. The material is made up of layers of gold nanorods suspended in clear plastic that has been spun flat onto a glass substrate and multiple data patterns can be written and read within the same area in the material without interference. The team achieved a storage density of 1.1 terabytes per cubic centimeter by writing data to stacks of 10 nanorod layers."
Related Stories
Submission: Researchers Store Optical Data in Five Dimensions by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
And.. (Score:5, Funny)
... if you add a sixth dimension (time), you can store a near-infinite amount of information!
Retrieval is a bitch though.
Re:And.. (Score:5, Funny)
My 6th dimensional storage device is /dev/null in order to retrieve the data, all you have to do is go back to the exact moment in time that it was written.
Parent
Re:And.. (Score:5, Funny)
I use the MD5 compression algorithm to store my data. I still haven't found a good MD5 decompressor yet.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Adisde from the mis-use of the word "dimension", this is not revolutionary.
Magnetic hard disks commonly get 500GB on a much smaller platter. Why is optical so much harder?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
mind you, that is no worse than calling stereoscopic pictures or movies "3D". But true 3D is holographic.
Re:And.. (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no "the" anythingth dimension; a dimension is just a property or variable that can be changed independantly of other dimensions within the context. So, in many areas of physics, the four dimensions you use in equations etc will often include time, but that doesn't mean that time is some universal dimension to be found in all equasions. For this storage, when you do the reading/writing is irrelevant to the data, eg, if you write a 1 at 4pm, it will be the same as if you wrote that 1 at 5pm. But, if you write it in a different colour, then the data is different, so, the data at any location can be expressed as a function of the intensity of each of the three colours (or wavelengths) and the intensity of the two different polorizations of light - five dimensions.
If for example you want to talk about the mass of any of the points where data's stored, then what matters is how many atoms there are there, nothing else is relevant, and so you'd only say there's one dimension.
So as you see, dimensions aren't universal things, they're purely contextual.
Parent
I count 6 dimensions not 5 (Score:3, Interesting)
I was wondering how two polorizations of light were being counted as dimensions, as light still needs a wavelength. Looks like each wavelength can store two bits of information, two patterns (see the photo on the article page), by polorizing it at different angles. So horizontal red is one dimension, verticle red is another; they're both used seperately. Hmm... why are they calling it 5? Am I missing something?
Re:I count 6 dimensions not 5 (Score:5, Informative)
Hmm... why are they calling it 5? Am I missing something?
Yes - the dimension of the system is just the number of independent variables, the 3 wavelengths and the 2 polorisations.
Think about it in terms of a 1D line vs a 2D plane. In the case of the line there is the less than 0 and greater than 0 regions. When you move up to a plane there are two new greater than 0 and less than 0s (in the y plane as opposed to the x plane of the 1D line, say). So you have 4 possible combinations (or quadrants in the plane) in 2 dimensions.
Also - note that light which is circularly polarised is both vertically polarised *and* horizontally polarised, so you can have unpolarised red light; vertically polarised red light; horizontally polarised red light and vertically and horizontally polarised red light.
(Similar to: just red light; red light and blue light; red light and green light and red light blue light and green light)
Parent
5 dimensions? (Score:5, Funny)
x,y,z,strange and charmed?
Re: (Score:2)
If you had some way to store data in particle spin, I could easily see 6 dimensions.
x,y,z position, plus x,y,z spin.
Interesting stuff....
Re: (Score:2)
If you had some way to store data in particle spin, I could easily see 6 dimensions.
x,y,z position, plus x,y,z spin.
Interesting stuff....
You should let a physicist know you discovered 3 new dimensions. I think they'd want to know about that.
Re:5 dimensions? (Score:5, Interesting)
Most physicists should be perfectly comfortable applying the term "dimensions" to cases other than spatial dimensions.
Once you're used to infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces, media articles that mention "five-dimensional storage" are only infinitesimally interesting by comparison.
Parent
Re:5 dimensions? (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Building
2. Floor
3. Wing
4. Room
5. Shelf
6. Book
I guess I've been accustomed to thinking about larger dimension numbers than 3 or 4 for a long time.
Parent
Re:5 dimensions? (Score:5, Informative)
Your example is easy to relate to, but there's a problem people should be aware of. While you can refer to the book's location using a 6-dimensional quantity, you *could* do it in 3, by giving its position in space. In a "real" n-dimensional system, you cannot reduce the system to less than n dimensions.
A good, but less-accessible example, is the state of an object in classical mechanics. The position of an object is 3-dimensional. The state, however, is 6-dimensional: your position (3D) and momentum (3D).
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You left our its orientation (3D) and it's angular monmentum (3D) (assuming non-point objects). Hence 12-D at least.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Is that so? Isn't that slightly sloppy, from a physicists point of view?
Rotation and spin are another degree of freedom (and, IRC, has been refered to as such by my physics lecturers), but physically not another dimension.
Mathematically, a Hilbert-space state vector is infinite-dimensional. But physically, it is just a function describing the state of the system in a three dimensional space over time.
My problem with using such an expression in a PopSci article is, that it is sensationalism. It relies on the
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Rotation and spin are another degree of freedom (and, IRC, has been refered to as such by my physics lecturers), but physically not another dimension"
Well they kind of are, in that they can't be collapsed into a smaller number of dimensions. If you take rotation of an object, what that refers to in the lower dimensions is the different in momentum of one side of the object to the other. If you do not include that information, to be able describe the object to the same degree of detail, you'd have to includ
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In Clifford / Geometric Algebras, which are the correct type of algebras for physics, if there are n dimensions (orthogonal vectors) then there are 2^n degrees of freedom. The grades of the degrees of freedom go by the rows of Pascal's triangle.
For 3-D that is 1 scalar (for real number coefficients), 3 vectors (x,y,z), 3 bivectors (xy, yz, zx - planes of rotation) and 1 pseudoscalar (xyz - volume). (xy = outer product of x and y, often written x^y. x^y = -y^x)
In 4-D space-time: 1 scalar (n) - 4 vectors (x,
Re:5 dimensions? (Score:4, Informative)
Ya know, reading the actual article (yes, I know) it actually looks like it is 6 dimensions not 5 anyway... as it's 3 wavelengths x 2 polorizations, not 3 wavelengths + 2 polorizations... ie, each colour is used twice, creating 6 virtual colours, ie, 6 dimensions.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:5 dimensions? (Score:5, Funny)
Chuck has as many dimensions as he pleases, and Chuck is not a theory; Chuck is real. And unlike string theory, he will kill you.
Parent
Five dimensional in the same way... (Score:4, Insightful)
..that my toaster is four dimensional because I can describe it as "silver".
This is cool enough as it is, I don't understand why the technobabble was added: polarization and color information layers may be novel attributes of a disc but there's no real reason to describe them as "5-dimensional" other than to sound physics-y.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand why the technobabble was added
To make people read the story, i.e. to sell newspapers (or ad views).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Five dimensional in the same way... (Score:5, Insightful)
To be blunt, your toaster is very much four dimensional if you care about its color.
In ML we talk about feature spaces having hundreds of dimensions and are just being accurate. The things you care about are the dimensions. Want Euclidean dimension in space? There are three dimensions. Dimensionality of spin? One for each of the quantities.
If we want to sound smart, we explain the theory behind SVMs and how it's in an infinite dimensional space:-)
Parent
Re:Five dimensional in the same way... (Score:4, Interesting)
What about color? What about weight? What about temperature? What about how much Barack Obama likes it on a scale of 1-10 assuming that's defined? All of these are valid features to include in your consideration. Perhaps you only care about two of the spacial dimensions, and it's two-dimensional.
Time is not automatically a 4th dimension. I really wish that myth would disappear. It's a convenience for visualizing some forms of 4D things (eg, imagining a hypercube as a normal cube that is gradually changing size) but you can visualize it other ways as well. I prefer to think of a hypercube as a cube plus its color.
Of course, these researchers are totally exploiting that consideration in the population to get fudning. Kind of like how you always add "with implications to homeland security" to the end of proposals, or "the Reds might already have one" in the good old days.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
What's equally odd is that to the layperson I'm sure 'data encoding using differing polarisations and wavelengths of light' means about as much as 'data encoding in five dimensions'. I guess they decided the latter sounds better.
Re:Five dimensional in the same way... (Score:5, Funny)
Oh please, it's as if I said a byte is an 8-dimensional bit.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A byte is a one-dimensional, eighth-order, array of bits.
Of course, bits in this context are discrete units of information only capable of providing one of two values. This method is interesting because the "bits" are capable of providing 5 pieces of unrelated, non-interfering, pieces of data. It's perfectly acceptable to refer to it as an orthogonal, five-dimensional datum, regardless of the lack of separation in space or time, and that they are not at 90 degree angles.
Re:Five dimensional in the same way... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's clear there's a use of the word that's technically fine but it's misrepresentative to pretty much anyone that's going to be reading the BBC article or this Technology Review site or whatever and all sources claim it wasn't the media making it up. It's pretty easy to post here and imply people are idiots because they don't know more than the popular science definition but then again everyone's an idiot about a great many things.
Parent
What else has gold, glass and plastic? (Score:5, Funny)
Goldschläger! [wikipedia.org]
Yawn. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yawn. (Score:4, Funny)
FWIW, I would definitely have a geekgasm at a 1 cm^2 TB thumbdrive.
Think about, that's infinite storage in a 1 cm^3 bay of thumbdrives.
Finally, a hand-held (well, desktop when you consider usage) storage device able to store all the porn ever created in the past OR future.
Parent
Storage in the Fifth Dimension... (Score:5, Funny)
...can it be the Age of Aquarius?
Misuse of the word "dimension" (Score:4, Insightful)
That's not the same as having six dimensions.
Re: (Score:2)
Look, my comment has 5 dimensions. Wait a moment... "words"
Re:Misuse of the word "dimension" (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ooohhh! Snap!! (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah! take that Sony. They not only have blue ray, they have blue, yellow and green ray.
It's a color laser light-show smackdown!.
Boo-Yeah!!!
When can I buy it? (Score:2)
I used to read about stuff just like this in Scientific American in ..... 1993.
So where are the products? That's what I want to know. Not bashing on the researchers here, but I will be I 70 before I here there is an actual product I can buy?
Watch out while storing on the 8th Dimension . . . (Score:2)
. . . you might hit Buckaroo Banzai on the road.
The hardest part (Score:5, Funny)
is engineering a read/write head which is bent at 90 degrees to reality in two distinct and orthogonal directions.
The downside is that a head crash would threaten the integrity of the space-time continuum worse than a Large Hadron Collider mishap and two Star Trek: Voyager episodes all occurring at the same time.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Christ. I mean, having to sit through one episode of ST:V makes me want to destroy the space time continuum. (Yatta!)
Uh, no... (Score:3, Funny)
Flux Capacitor can't be far, can it... (Score:5, Funny)
1.1TB thanks to optical storage in 5 dimensions...3 more and we'll be driving cars through mountains. I can't wait. I just hope the researchers behind this work realize that no mater where they go, there they are.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Polarization can be a dimension, but not wavelengt (Score:5, Informative)
Wavelength doesn't really count as a dimension for stroage, nor can one store an infinite amount of information by using an infinite number of frequencies. However, polarization could be considered a dimension for the purposes of storage.
The problem with anything in the frequency domain is that you cannot encode a single frequency without creating a spread which crosses multiple frequencies. This limits how short a pulse one can encode at the desired frequency and how closely one can pack discrete frequencies together to encode different data. Coupled with the noise floor the combination limits the amount of data which can be stored in the frequency domain.
for example, if you were to look at the fourier transform of a sine wave you would see a single frequency. However, if you were to look at the fourier transform of the sine wave and INCLUDE the lack of a sine wave before and after the sine wave pulse being encoded, you would see a log of bleedover into other frequencies due to the ramp-up and ramp-down times. Any change, such as going from flatline to a sine-wave, will create a lot of harmonics. Harmonics can be reduced (but not eliminated) by using an envelope to ramp-up or ramp-down the operation, but an envelope of course requires the pulse duration to be longer. So the amount of data which can be stored is limited no matter what you do.
It works a bit differently when one is working in a quantum mechanical domain... in that case it is possible to store discrete information at discrete frequencies, but you only have particular frequencies to work with, typically related to the energy level of the electrons being knocked around.
-Matt
Re:Five? (Score:4, Informative)
X, Y, Z, wavelength, polarization
Just like how a tic-tac-toe board and a chess board are both two dimensional, despite one having a lot more locations than the other, the number of distinct polarizations or wavelengths this can detect doesn't matter. It's the number of different "things" it looks at.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hard disc platters are made from glass. A cube of glass is very difficult to break, and the surface could be protected with a layer of plastic.