3 ms·
Can anyone put this in terms like 100100 Petabytes or something? Or is the number so large that it really isn't conceivable at this point? I'll admit that I do
by dizzystar 13y ago
Can anyone put this in terms like 100100 Petabytes or something? Or is the number so large that it really isn't conceivable at this point?
I'll admit that I don't understand the problem completely, but isn't this assuming the absolute maximum with little consideration of actual technology limits? How much does it change when we consider the limits of technology and our ability to store it on said technology?
- sesqu 13y agoThe number is far too large to have an SI name. Some people have put forward suggestions for new prefixes, but they wouldn't help you understand the number. Edit: I suppose you could say 1 exayottayottabit, or 100 pebiyobiyobibytes, per cc. And yes, this relies on using qubits for storage, in greater densities than is achievable.
- gibybo 13y agoThere isn't a friendly name for 10^66 bits, but perhaps you can get an idea for the scale by considering the sizes of more commonly used names: bit: 10^0, kilobit: 10^3, megabit: 10^6, gigabit: 10^9, terabit: 10^12, ... zettabit: 10^21, yottabit: 10^24 So we're at some pretty ridiculously large numbers and still nowhere near 10^66.