×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Researchers Store Optical Data In Five Dimensions

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the don't-forget-time dept.

Data Storage 239

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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

239 comments

And.. (5, Funny)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 4 years ago | (#28031087)

... if you add a sixth dimension (time), you can store a near-infinite amount of information!

Retrieval is a bitch though.

Re:And.. (4, Funny)

Burning1 (204959) | more than 4 years ago | (#28031765)

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.

Re:And.. (5, Funny)

fireman sam (662213) | more than 4 years ago | (#28031863)

I use the MD5 compression algorithm to store my data. I still haven't found a good MD5 decompressor yet.

Re:And.. (1)

plover (150551) | more than 4 years ago | (#28032271)

So if there are 1,000,000,000 nanorods to a rod, and there are 502.92 cm to a rod, there must be 1,988,387 nanorods in a cm. But since a nanorod is only a unit of length and doesn't give a width or depth, we can't really figure out how many nanorods to the cubic cm.

Re:And.. (0, Offtopic)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 4 years ago | (#28032385)

But since a nanorod is only a unit of length and doesn't give a width or depth, we can't really figure out how many nanorods to the cubic cm.

Or how many nanorods to the hogshead, dagnabit!

5 dimensions? (4, Funny)

ionix5891 (1228718) | more than 4 years ago | (#28031103)

x,y,z,strange and charmed?

Re:5 dimensions? (1)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 4 years ago | (#28031141)

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:5 dimensions? (1)

Samedi1971 (194079) | more than 4 years ago | (#28031381)

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? (5, Interesting)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 4 years ago | (#28031569)

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.

Re:5 dimensions? (1)

sdpuppy (898535) | more than 4 years ago | (#28031857)

Whooooosh!!!

But you're absolutely correct - physicists (as well as other enlightened and intelligent people) refer to parameters as dimensions.

You need them so that you don't overlap with yourself and become a Bose.

Thumbs up & high five (one for each dimension).

High six if you have an extra finger.

Re:5 dimensions? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28032333)

You killed my father! Prepare to die.

Re:5 dimensions? (5, Insightful)

khellendros1984 (792761) | more than 4 years ago | (#28031907)

A classic example given in programming is a 6 dimensional array.
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.

Re:5 dimensions? (5, Informative)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 4 years ago | (#28032113)

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).

Re:5 dimensions? (2, Interesting)

Yokaze (70883) | more than 4 years ago | (#28032585)

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 common understanding of physical dimensions as (3 x space + X), implying some other dimension besides the well known spatial ones.

Re:5 dimensions? (2, Funny)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 4 years ago | (#28031487)

More likely x, y, z, ana/kata, and Chuck Norris

Re:5 dimensions? (2, Funny)

thhamm (764787) | more than 4 years ago | (#28031585)

that's more than 5. chuck alone has 11 dimensions!

Re:5 dimensions? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28031785)

There are 12 Dimensions of Creation [bibliotecapleyades.net]

But yes, Chuck Norris is 11 of them. I think the 12th is the one created by the chair Ballmer threw.

There, I made my /. references for the day. Back to non-productive activity at work.

Re:5 dimensions? (4, Funny)

RulerOf (975607) | more than 4 years ago | (#28031799)

No no no, only string theory [wikipedia.org] has 11 dimensions.

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.

Five dimensional in the same way... (4, Insightful)

Carbon016 (1129067) | more than 4 years ago | (#28031121)

..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:Five dimensional in the same way... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28031237)

In this case they were undoubtedly using dimension in the mathematics sense and not the physics sense.

Also, being able to understand the different meanings of words based on their context is a basic skill of language comprehension. Just saying.

Re:Five dimensional in the same way... (4, Funny)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#28031325)

Oh please, it's as if I said a byte is an 8-dimensional bit.

Re:Five dimensional in the same way... (2, Interesting)

mazarin5 (309432) | more than 4 years ago | (#28031811)

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... (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#28032291)

Or you know, it's really just a 3D physical thing in 3D space that they measure various properties of.

Could I make a CD that records data not as pits but as pits painted with color and say I've gotten more dimensions out of it? NO!

Re:Five dimensional in the same way... (2, Informative)

ElKry (1544795) | more than 4 years ago | (#28032371)

And bytes are capable of providing 8 pieces of unrelated, non-interfering, pieces of data. I think you're missing at least one level of abstraction there.

Also, you got it wrong. Their "bits", as you say, are able to store SIX, not five pieces of unrelated, non-interfering, pieces of data. By using three wavelenghts and two polarization, they get to write six different patterns in the disc.

What's happening here is that the coordinates to reach those bits are five: x,y,z,wavelength, polarization. That's why someone decided to call it a 5-dimensional space. But again, each single physical storage "node" can store 6 pieces of information. That's unrelated to the 5 dimensions.

They could use 5 different wavelengths and 4 different polarizations and it would be a 5-dimensional space that can store 20 pieces of information.

Re:Five dimensional in the same way... (1)

byner (1428013) | more than 4 years ago | (#28032131)

If it was stored in the same physical footprint of a typical bit, I'd agree.

Re:Five dimensional in the same way... (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 4 years ago | (#28032249)

Is this stored in the same physical footprint of its non-5-dimensional counterpart?

If so, please describe said counterpart, and tell us why it's not 5-dimensional.

Re:Five dimensional in the same way... (4, Insightful)

Carbon016 (1129067) | more than 4 years ago | (#28031349)

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.

Re:Five dimensional in the same way... (1)

xaxa (988988) | more than 4 years ago | (#28031253)

I don't understand why the technobabble was added

To make people read the story, i.e. to sell newspapers (or ad views).

Re:Five dimensional in the same way... (1)

GiovanniZero (1006365) | more than 4 years ago | (#28031307)

Ever used multi-dimensional arrays? I'm pretty sure they're called that because geeks want people to think that they are masters of the universe...

Re:Five dimensional in the same way... (5, Insightful)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 4 years ago | (#28031323)

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:-)

Re:Five dimensional in the same way... (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#28032683)

His toaster is in fact really four-dimensional. Even in the "usual" sense. It has 3 dimensions of space, and exists for a certain range in the dimension of time.

Re:Five dimensional in the same way... (1)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 4 years ago | (#28031335)

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... (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#28032765)

In case the laylifeform* is a retard, then yes. Come on. It was a tech site. We are a tech site. And even if not: Wikipedia is just a bookmark away.
Or don't you learn polarization and wavelengths in early high school (or high school equivalent)?

* Making everything end in "-person" is just p.c. personism. :P

Re:Five dimensional in the same way... (1)

pitch2cv (1473939) | more than 4 years ago | (#28031415)

I don't understand why the technobabble was added: polarization and color information layers [are] no real reason to describe them as "5-dimensional" other than to sound physics-y.

They're 5 dimensions because they're 5 bits stored in the same nanorod. From what I understand 3 parts of the nanorod react to the 3 respective wavelengths they're using. That, and the 2 used states of polarisation (coaxial and transversal), would give indeed 5 bits per nanorod - in database terms 5-dimensional, but not acutally in "5-dimensional space" indeed. So they are not different physical dimensions at all...

Re:Five dimensional in the same way... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28031723)

Ummh, wouldn't that be 2*3=6 bit?

Re:Five dimensional in the same way... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28032097)

no, that would be 2+3=6bits. its not two sets of three bits, its three bits (funky light reactions), then an additional two bits (direction pointing). At least I think that, I still haven't rtfa.

Re:Five dimensional in the same way... (1)

Twinbee (767046) | more than 4 years ago | (#28031609)

If 5 dimensions is only 5 times as much data stored as usual, then you're right, the term 'attribute' would be more useful.

However, if each dimension compounds upon each other, then it's certainly worth using.

For example, a 5D array of say... 10 bits each (10*10*10*10) for what would usually be only 10 bits for the equivalent 1D would be phenomenal.

Re:Five dimensional in the same way... (1)

tarpy (447542) | more than 4 years ago | (#28032065)

I had the same reaction. This sounds as if what they're doing is changing a particular location in six separate translations (or degrees of freedom if you like), but what they described didn't in any way involve any physical dimension outside of the 3 classical ones (as far as I can tell).

However, IANAPP, therefore might not grasp the particular nuances of quantum theory that actually make what they did leap past x, y, and z.

Re:Five dimensional in the same way... (1)

Ambiguous Puzuma (1134017) | more than 4 years ago | (#28032173)

Can you store a red toaster in the same location as your silver toaster, just because it has a different color?

Re:Five dimensional in the same way... (1)

tenco (773732) | more than 4 years ago | (#28032601)

3 spacial orientations times 2 wavelengths should be 6 dimensions in k-space. With 2 polarizations you should get two 6 dimensional k-spaces. But that's still no explanation why they say it's 5 dimensional.

What else has gold, glass and plastic? (4, Funny)

rsborg (111459) | more than 4 years ago | (#28031127)

... and puts me in another dimension?

Goldschläger! [wikipedia.org]

Yawn. (4, Insightful)

scubamage (727538) | more than 4 years ago | (#28031145)

Sweet, more vaporware that will never hit shelves for less than $20,000 a disk, if it ever makes it out at all (possibly a hyperbole). Just like holographic storage. While the idea is fascinating that it can store in x,y,z, polarization, and wavelength, I wonder if this will ever lead to anything practical besides a geekgasm at the idea of a 1cm^2 TB thumbdrive.

Re:Yawn. (3, Funny)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 4 years ago | (#28031457)

I wonder if this will ever lead to anything practical besides a geekgasm at the idea of a 1cm^2 TB thumbdrive.

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.

Re:Yawn. (1)

scubamage (727538) | more than 4 years ago | (#28031753)

Ack, nice catch on my exponential folly :)

Re:Yawn. (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 4 years ago | (#28031845)

FWIW, the third dimension is generally meaningless when referring to thumb drive size... only the biggest two dimensions really affect our usage. If I hadn't made the same error a couple weeks ago, I wouldn't have noticed it myself :)

That's freaking kewl! (1)

KiwiCanuck (1075767) | more than 4 years ago | (#28031181)

Hopefully, they can get away from glass, and use something less fragile.

Re:That's freaking kewl! (2, Informative)

xaxa (988988) | more than 4 years ago | (#28031677)

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.

Not another disk (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 4 years ago | (#28032523)

I wish they'd get away from this whole spinning platter fixation. Mechanical movement was necessary in the days when you needed to induce an electric current from magnetic fields, but we're optical now. Surely we can just build an array of laser diodes and phototransistors on a chip and read the entire surface without moving things back and forth.

Misuse of the word "dimension" (3, Insightful)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | more than 4 years ago | (#28031189)

What they mean is that they can store six different things in the same place.

That's not the same as having six dimensions.

Re:Misuse of the word "dimension" (1)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 4 years ago | (#28031495)

It's not actually misuse of the word "dimension". You're just used to thinking only of spatial dimensions, and other restricted senses of the term.

Re:Misuse of the word "dimension" (4, Informative)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 4 years ago | (#28031681)

Nope, they mean exactly what they said. They mean the dimension of the vector space, not the physical dimensions of the material. To identify a bit being stored, you REQUIRE 5 coordinates: X,Y,Z,wavelength,polarity. So, the vector space had D=5.

Re:Misuse of the word "dimension" (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28032201)

You don't need five, you only need four - wavelength and polarity are discrete and finite so they can be combined into a single "dimension" with six possible values. You can't do that with x, y and z coordinates.

The word dimension is quite inappropriate and only serves to confuse.

Re:Misuse of the word "dimension" (1)

niklask (1073774) | more than 4 years ago | (#28031717)

What they mean is that they can store six different things in the same place.

That's not the same as having six dimensions.

It is not physical dimensions no, but you know, the word dimension can be used in other contexts as well.

Five? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28031199)

3 wavelengths * 2 polarizations = 6, doesn't it?

Re:Five? (3, Informative)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | more than 4 years ago | (#28031623)

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.

length, height, and width are three dimensions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28031223)

length=x
height=y
width=z
the other two dimensions must be Patty and Selma

Oops...this just in...The Fifth Dimension apparently has only existed since the 1960s
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fifth_Dimension

Ooohhh! Snap!! (5, Funny)

gizmo2199 (458329) | more than 4 years ago | (#28031225)

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!!!

Another example of improper units. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28031273)

Once again, reporters fail to use standard units. What's this in LOCs? (libraries of congress)

Re:Another example of improper units. (1)

Razalhague (1497249) | more than 4 years ago | (#28032405)

I thought that meant Lines Of Code. Hope no one is confusing the two. Talk about unreasonable expectations...

When can I buy it? (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 4 years ago | (#28031275)

The team achieved a storage density of 1.1 terabytes per cubic centimeter

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?

Re:When can I buy it? (2, Insightful)

Cryogenic Specter (702059) | more than 4 years ago | (#28032157)

You may be mistaken. In 1993 you were probably reading about the amazing gnarly research of storing 700 mb on CD media (what? more than 650!) or the amazing hard drive like 100 mb zip drive! (ooooooh, that is like the SAME size as my hard drive, but it's PORTABLE!) I jest of course. I DO however remember reading about blue ray tech around 1996 though. There have been a LOT of developments like this, but the number one determining factor IMHO has been MARKETING, followed by consumer price.

Re:When can I buy it? (1)

khellendros1984 (792761) | more than 4 years ago | (#28032259)

1993 would've been, what, 500MB 3.5" hard disks? So, 21.74MB per in^3 (1.33MB per cc). 16 years later, we have 16GB of storage in a USB key like this [thinkgeek.com], in 0.081 in^3, for a density of 202,271 MB per in^3 (12,343MB/cc). This new method is about 94 times denser than current flash technology. In 16 years of time, we've had a density improvement around 10000x. You do the math (since I feel like I've done enough for the moment)

The hardest part (5, Funny)

idontgno (624372) | more than 4 years ago | (#28031363)

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:The hardest part (2, Funny)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#28031531)

Christ. I mean, having to sit through one episode of ST:V makes me want to destroy the space time continuum. (Yatta!)

Uh, no... (2, Funny)

creimer (824291) | more than 4 years ago | (#28031391)

I have a hard enough time keeping track of my data to have it go time traveling and wandering around the universe like an old TARDIS [wikipedia.org].

Flux Capacitor can't be far, can it... (4, Funny)

rootrot (103518) | more than 4 years ago | (#28031403)

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:Flux Capacitor can't be far, can it... (2, Funny)

cashman73 (855518) | more than 4 years ago | (#28031545)

Thanks to this invention, geeks of the future will need a flux capacitor just to view their porn collections! Suddenly, Doc Brown's odd pronunciation of, "1.1 Gigawatts", makes a lot more sense!

Re:Flux Capacitor can't be far, can it... (1)

Ximok (650049) | more than 4 years ago | (#28031979)

Wait, I thought that we stayed still and the mountains moved through US!?!? I need to take that quantum mechanics course...

If we remember our 2010 dialog... (1)

GPLDAN (732269) | more than 4 years ago | (#28031485)

Dr. Vasili Orlov: What was that all about?
Chandra: I've erased all of HAL's memory from the moment the trouble started.
Dr. Vasili Orlov: The 9000 series uses holographic memory so chronological erasures would not work.
Chandra: I made a tapeworm.
Walter Curnow: You made a what?
Chandra: It's a program that's fed into a system that will hunt down and destroy any desired memories.

Definitely not 5 dimensions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28031505)

Without getting into semantics, I fail to see how using 3 different wavelengths qualifies as three different dimensions. At most they should count as utilizing part of one dimension. Same with polarization being an extra dimension.

Of course our current communication technologies already use these two properties of light to multiplex signals over the air/fiber, so why not do it with storage as well?

Chump Change (1)

Drone69 (1517261) | more than 4 years ago | (#28031515)

For Sale: 1TB 5-dimensional gold nanorod HDD, $999999.97(Wall Mart pricing) Limit 2 per customer.

Five degrees of freedom ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28031559)

... is not the same thing as five dimensions. Otherwise my arm is a six-dimensional manipulator. I don't think so.

Re:Five degrees of freedom ... (1)

adonoman (624929) | more than 4 years ago | (#28032079)

If your arm can change color and switch between a left and a right hand then it can move through 5 dimensions: x, y, z, color, and handedness. Add in number of fingers and you have 6.

Spinning disks and lasers (2, Insightful)

moon3 (1530265) | more than 4 years ago | (#28031613)

TA talks about disks etc. Solid state is the future, if I am not mistaken. We can have any number of flash memory "layers" even now... capacity is no longer the most important factor, other parameters like "write speeds" are.

This should have been tagged "vapor ware". What about the materials involved (gold) ? Re-write ability ? Speed of write ? Speed of reads ? Possible seek times ? How well manufacturing of this scales ? etc.

Does polarization really count as a dimension? (1, Interesting)

s_p_oneil (795792) | more than 4 years ago | (#28031619)

Wavelength is definitely a full dimension, as it would be possible to read data at a near infinite number of specific wavelengths. Reading should be easy because you can just pass the light through a prism and check a specific angle of refraction to find the wavelength you need. Writing would be trickier, but it's an engineering problem that can be improved upon over time.

I'm not sure if I'd call polarization a dimension because there are only two angles you can work with, the angle you start with and the angle perpendicular to it. If you try to use a third angle, data from other two will mix with what you're trying to read. So I would say polarization adds another bit (allowing you to store twice as much), but not another full dimension (potentially allowing you to store orders of magnitude more).

Re:Does polarization really count as a dimension? (1)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | more than 4 years ago | (#28031775)

I'm not sure if I'd call polarization a dimension because there are only two angles you can work with, the angle you start with and the angle perpendicular to it. If you try to use a third angle, data from other two will mix with what you're trying to read. So I would say polarization adds another bit (allowing you to store twice as much), but not another full dimension (potentially allowing you to store orders of magnitude more).

But it's completely independent of the other dimensions, so it probably counts. Maybe this is the same sort of thing as the string theory people mean when they talk about extra "rolled up" dimensions, or how the surface of a sheet of paper and the surface of a paper towel tube are both two dimensional even though there are a lot less discrete positions going around the circumference of the tube?

Re:Does polarization really count as a dimension? (1)

Omestes (471991) | more than 4 years ago | (#28032087)

Maybe this is the same sort of thing as the string theory people mean when they talk about extra "rolled up" dimensions, or how the surface of a sheet of paper and the surface of a paper towel tube are both two dimensional even though there are a lot less discrete positions going around the circumference of the tube?

I doubt it, the string theorists are talking about SPATIAL dimensions, while this is talking of axis of data stored (the terms fail me, someone earlier had them correct, but my brain failed). If you plotted the storage parameters, it would require 5 axis of information. This is different than storing things in a direction orthogonal from those which we are familiar with.

Not to comment on you in particular, but to /. as a whole; but how can a bunch of so called nerds not know the difference between this use of the term.

On a quick google, this is a "vector" dimension, or somesuch.

fpag0rz (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28031941)

leqasT of which is troubles of those

Reader / Writer? (1)

Cryogenic Specter (702059) | more than 4 years ago | (#28032035)

It may store 1.1 terabytes per cubic centimeter but the reader is as big as a room and the writer is as big as your house, but next year they will only be $30 on Woot.

(silly speculation. Not to be confused with researched facts)

Layers != Dimensions (1, Flamebait)

jonharrell (621575) | more than 4 years ago | (#28032061)

Bunch of morons adding up layers and calling them dimensions. "ooooh I have just entered the fifth dimension of my office - er - I mean the fifth floor"

Why are the centimeters cubic? (1)

averner (1341263) | more than 4 years ago | (#28032833)

Why are the centimeters cubic if there are 5 dimensions? Wouldn't it be quintic centimeters or something?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...