Storing data in quantum spaces.

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter pondzo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Data Quantum
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the feasibility of storing data in quantum spaces, specifically in regions at or below the Planck length. Participants explore the implications of data storage on physical space and the theoretical limits of information density, including concepts such as the Bekenstein bound and Landauer's principle.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether data can be stored in a space smaller than or equal to the Planck length and asks about the physical space that data occupies.
  • Another participant references the Bekenstein bound, suggesting that the maximum amount of data that can be stored in a given volume is proportional to the surface area rather than the volume.
  • A participant seeks clarification on how the mass of a system relates to the Bekenstein bound in the context of the original query.
  • Landauer's principle is introduced as a relevant concept, linking information and entropy, although its applicability to the original question is debated.
  • One participant calculates the minimum mass-energy required to store one bit of information in a sphere with a diameter equal to the Planck length, arriving at a value of approximately 4.316*10^-9 joules and questions the feasibility of such a mass for practical systems.
  • Reversible computing is suggested as a related topic for further exploration.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the applicability of Landauer's principle to the question of data storage in quantum spaces, and there is no consensus on the feasibility of the calculated mass-energy for practical systems.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes unresolved assumptions regarding the relationship between information, physical space, and the implications of theoretical limits on data storage.

pondzo
Messages
168
Reaction score
0
Would it be possible to store Data in a space smaller or equal to the plank length? And also does Data (or the storage of it) take up physical space and if so how much approximately?
Thanks, Michael.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
pondzo said:
And also does Data (or the storage of it) take up physical space and if so how much approximately?

There is believed to be an upper bound on the amount of information you can store in a given volume: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound

Interestingly, according to this bound the maximum amount of data that you can store in a given spherical region is proportional to the *surface area* of the sphere instead of its volume.
 
That is interesting! I had a look at the link and the equation involves the mass of the system, what do you think this would correspond to in my query?
 
UltrafastPED said:
Look up Landauer's limit and reconsider your question:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landauer's_principle

There is a connection between information and entropy which must be taken into account.

I'm not entirely sure how landauers limit applies to my question (since this principle applies to only a logically irriversible manipulation of data , which i don't think this is?), could you please explain?

The_Duck said:
There is believed to be an upper bound on the amount of information you can store in a given volume: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound

Using this inequality I calculated the minumum mass-energy of a system required to store one bit of information in a sphere of diameter the Planck length, to be 4.316*10^-9 joules. which corresponds to a stationary mass of 4.802*10^-9 Kg.

I have only minimal understanding of computing systems, the processes of storing information and the sort of system required to do so, But is this order of mass for a system practically feasible? (or could it be in the near future? - and i know the future&technology is a vague concept itself but...)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
6K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K