Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!ut-sally!nather
From: nather@ut-sally.UUCP (Ed Nather)
Newsgroups: net.arch
Subject: Re: electrons as a bound on memory size (was VLMM, crypt)
Message-ID: <5745@ut-sally.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 17-Sep-86 14:26:14 EDT
Article-I.D.: ut-sally.5745
Posted: Wed Sep 17 14:26:14 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 19-Sep-86 21:58:40 EDT
References: <15505@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <5100124@ccvaxa> <972@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> <505@gvax.cs.cornell.edu>
Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas
Lines: 24
Keywords: :-)
Summary: Hold it ...

In article <505@gvax.cs.cornell.edu>, jqj@gvax.cs.cornell.edu (J Q Johnson) writes:
> Going one step further out, why use matter to encode data at all?   If you 
> want bulk sequential storage, simply modulate an EM wave directed at a
> distant point (that destination might be a reflector of some kind if you
> know you will want to retrieve your data at the same location you generated
> it).  Result:  effectively infinite bulk storage at the cost of a finite
> and small number of electrons. 

I'm not sure what "effectively infinite" means, but I do know that any EM
"wave" is made up of individual photons, which must appear in groups
(using current technology) of 5 or more to generate a detectable signal.
Even if you could get it down to 2 photons (1 == off, 2 == on, 100% detection
efficiency) the storage will be far from infinite -- it will be, in fact,
finite. (*gasp*).  

There is also an energy requirement: if it were as you describe, you could
make a jim-dandy perpetual motion machine that way.


-- 
Ed Nather
Astronomy Dept, U of Texas @ Austin
{allegra,ihnp4}!{noao,ut-sally}!utastro!nather
nather@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU