25 ms·
"The ultimate end of Moore's Law is a single atom." That's a bit depressing. Why a single atom, and not some smaller particle?
by conanite 15y ago
"The ultimate end of Moore's Law is a single atom."
That's a bit depressing. Why a single atom, and not some smaller particle?
- fadzlan 15y agoI'm not quite sure I understand. Wouldn't a single atom as it is, the smallest particle possible?
- Anderkent 15y agoFrom what I remember from physics lessons, going with more elementary particles might be possible eventually, but not in any foreseeable future - (most/some) atoms are fairly stable by themselves, while keeping a hadron-based structure stable will probably be very difficult.
- cot6mur3 15y agoNice response. As for ultimate limits, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound. Of course, this bound doesn't really give bits per quark/particle limits - just an overall limit based on the spherical radius of the information-storing system.
- ars 15y agoYou may be able to store more than one bit in each atom.