Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
posted by hubie on Wednesday October 30, @02:10AM   Printer-friendly

Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:

Researchers at the University of Chicago and Argonne National Lab have developed a new type of optical memory that stores data by transferring light from rare-earth element atoms embedded in a solid material to nearby quantum defects. They published their study in Physical Review Research.

The problem that the researchers aim to solve is the diffraction limit of light in standard CDs and DVDs. Current optical storage has a hard cap on data density because each single bit can't be smaller than the wavelength of the reading/writing laser.

The researchers propose bypassing this limit by stuffing the material with rare-earth emitters, such as magnesium oxide (MgO) crystals. The trick, called wavelength multiplexing, involves having each emitter use a slightly different wavelength of light. They theorized that this would allow cramming far more data into the same storage footprint.

The researchers first had to tackle the physics and model all the requirements to build a proof of concept. They simulated a theoretical solid material filled with rare-earth atoms that absorb and re-emit light. The models then showed how the nearby quantum defects could capture and store the returned light.

One of the fundamental discoveries was that when a defect absorbs the narrow wavelength energy from those nearby atoms, it doesn't just get excited – its spin state flips. Once it flips, it is nearly impossible to revert, meaning those defects could legitimately store data for a long time.

While it's a promising first step, some crucial questions still need answers. For example, verifying how long those excited states persist is essential. Details were also light on capacity estimates – the scientists touted "ultra-high-density" but didn't provide any projections against current disc capacities. Yet, despite the remaining hurdles, the researchers are hyped, calling it a "huge first step."

Of course, turning all this into an actual commercial storage product will likely take years of additional research and development.


Original Submission

 
This discussion was created by hubie (1068) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday October 30, @02:43AM

    by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 30, @02:43AM (#1379379)
    So... what are we supposed to talk about?
    --
    🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
  • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 30, @03:11AM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 30, @03:11AM (#1379386)

    Of course, turning all this into an actual commercial storage product will likely take years of additional research and development.

    So the translation of this statement is somewhere between "I've solved the interesting research problems. The rest is just business, right?" and "We haven't finished inventing it yet, but when we do, it'll be awesome."

    I feel like optical storage "breakthroughs" appear in the news every couple years. I remember reading about 1TB+ optical discs decades ago (this was more than the biggest hard drives available at the time). Obviously nobody ever made them viable. They probably all fail because mass producing discs with exotic materials or processes will likely never make any economical sense to anyone.

    There is a reason why even the latest UHD blu-rays are basically the exact same optical technology as LaserDiscs made in 1978, just made smaller with fancier lasers and more accurate manufacturing processes. It's pretty much all to do with the ease of mass production of the discs.

    • (Score: 2) by aafcac on Wednesday October 30, @03:28AM (1 child)

      by aafcac (17646) on Wednesday October 30, @03:28AM (#1379387)

      TBH, optical media has a lot of issues. I'm not really sure what you'd do with an optical disc with more capacity than the 100gb-ish space that you get on some of the multi-layer Blu rays. SSDs and regular magnetic media can already do several times that capacity for less money. And while it is sometimes useful to have storage that can't be modified, it can be a pain in terms of checking to make sure that it hasn't gone bad. I've had a fair number of audio CDs go bad over the last couple years after less than 30 years, and I've got DVDs starting to go the same way. But, the time it takes just to verify that the discs are still good could be a full-time job for at least a month.

      • (Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Wednesday October 30, @04:24PM

        by hendrikboom (1125) on Wednesday October 30, @04:24PM (#1379443) Homepage Journal

        You could use it for a hard-to-erase backup medium. A mere 100gb is much smaller than my hard drive's data. And there's even a chance that this new medium has a chance of surviving a Carrington event.

    • (Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday October 30, @05:52PM

      by VLM (445) on Wednesday October 30, @05:52PM (#1379459)

      I remember reading about 1TB+ optical discs decades ago (this was more than the biggest hard drives available at the time). Obviously nobody ever made them viable.

      Kind of. I used to work at a "broadcast-adjacent" facility and Sony Optical Carts were a thing since the turn of the century. For about $100 you get a recordable disk in a caddy that holds 1.5 TB. Its COTS and being a Sony product its quite expensive.

      $100/TB was a pretty good price in 2010.

      I looked it up online and the third gen 5.5 TB (not GB, TB) carts are about 5 years old and they're probably last generation as I suspect flash drives are getting "pretty close" to third gen cart prices (and capacities)

      Why do broadcast facilities record and keep stuff forever? I don't entirely know. I think its like if some old boomer dies in 2024 and he was interviewed on the news back in 2014 they will run the footage.

      Ironically when I looked this up I thought I found it when I found the Sony/Panasonic "AD" system, which this is not. The "AD" system was discontinued this year and only held 1 TB.

      The disks are kind of a problem in search of a solution. Latest LTO tapes are cheaper per byte, and flash drives are faster random access. In the middle, unsure what you need a disk for.

      I will say the sony optical carts stack nicely in a rack thing. I distinctly remember watching the broadcast guys showing off a wall of about $20K of disks, a good fraction of a petabyte, to the IT guys who thought they were hot stuff for having a couple TB online (at that time, that was a lot). For $20K apparently Sony used to throw in a cool storage rack, looked very sci fi in that "dark gray Battlestar Galactica" sense.

      I was not directly involved. Sony being Sony I would assume the ODA drives had special interfaces for special Sony pro camera gear. But sometimes Sony surprises us by not being complete jerks like they historically were.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by janrinok on Wednesday October 30, @06:50AM (8 children)

    by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 30, @06:50AM (#1379408) Journal

    I am having a problem finding a specific use for such a storage medium.

    As others have pointed out, optical disks have fairly long lives but they are far from being permanent. It also implies an additional task of detecting when they are failing so that a reasonable update/rewrite policy can be implemented.

    Cost wise, I cannot see them competing with the cost and convenience of a thumb drive. I can find ads for 1TB thumb drives now although I tend not to buy anything over 64Gb. SSDs seem to be at least as reliable as the hard drives of a decade or more ago.

    I also find it hard to imagine what software I have that will still be relevant in 30 years time, So that suggests that the new drives will be more for archival usage rather than regular storage e.g. images, perhaps personal documents, etc

    Finally, just as with batteries, 'improved ' storage devices are touted at regular intervals. Very few of them actually appear some time later as viable products. Scientifically it is a neat trick, and that is where I have an interest in this story, but now show me what you can actually do with a working product.

    --
    I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by janrinok on Wednesday October 30, @06:53AM (6 children)

      by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 30, @06:53AM (#1379409) Journal

      I also find it hard to imagine what software I have that will still be relevant in 30 years time

      I wrote that and then burst out laughing as soon as I had posted it. This site is based on Perl code that was written in the late 1990s!

      --
      I am not interested in knowing who people are or where they live. My interest starts and stops at our servers.
      • (Score: 1) by shrewdsheep on Wednesday October 30, @08:56AM

        by shrewdsheep (5215) on Wednesday October 30, @08:56AM (#1379412)

        So you are pre-ordering discussed storage media now? Curious researcher wants to know.

      • (Score: 2) by aafcac on Wednesday October 30, @03:03PM (4 children)

        by aafcac (17646) on Wednesday October 30, @03:03PM (#1379438)

        The thing is though that if you want extremely long lifetimes, there are other things you can do with lasers that will give you that, for example burning holes into aluminum or copper plates. Those will last more or less until the end of time in many cases, there are those metal codices found in the Middle East from thousands of years ago that would be readable, except that nobody seems to know how to decode them. Which is arguably the bigger problem. Sure, we can etch things into stone, or metal, but what can we do to ensure that they can still be read in 50-100 years? Just over the last 50 years,we went through several versions of the Floppy disk drive, several versions of the HDD, several iterations of optical media and I'm not even sure I want to estimate how many types of tape, not to mention Zip disks and flash cards.

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by VLM on Wednesday October 30, @06:32PM (3 children)

          by VLM (445) on Wednesday October 30, @06:32PM (#1379466)

          My public library used to have two rows of microfilm and microfiche machines and they got rid of all of them and now have a single computer hooked up to what looks like a microscope as its replacement.
          I think they got rid of all the microfilm except for the very local (down the road) newspaper archive.
          They used to have microfilms of numerous magazines including Scientific American and these 35 mm film rolls dated back to IIRC either right before or right after WWII and the quality was fine when I was looking at them in the 80s. Some of the oldest newspaper film rolls at my library would be 80 years old now.

          Interesting sociology where during summer break during the day, the film readers were 90%+ genealogy old people and I was the only young person there. I read all the Scientfic American Amateur Scientist articles on microfilm and the Mathematical Recreations column and in the early 80s they had a possibly short lived computer column.

          The newest nicest microfilm machine (in, lets say, 1983, maybe 1986 don't recall exactly) had what amounts to a Xerox printer hooked up where the light from the microfilm directly developed on the photocopier drum for IIRC exactly three nickels per page. I still have some microfilm printouts, but you wouldn't know it, they look exactly like a 1980s xerox copier, which, I guess, they were in a fundamental sense.

          IIRC there were multiple pages per 35 mm frame, it wasn't one magazine page per 35mm frame. At least 2 maybe was it 8? Microfiche were a different kettle of fish and on a single large slide the size of a postcard you could quite easily hold an entire 100+ page magazine in row-column format.

          For kids these days, magazine columns were kind of like a once-a-month blogpost they'd print out and mail to you for a fee. Oh shit I guess in 2024 I have to explain to kids these days what a blogpost was, well imagine a tiktok but for literate people.

          Portable readers for microfilm and fiche existed and I always wanted one as a kid to do basically what we use a Kindle for today, except somewhat less conveniently. IIRC some technical magazines like QST, QEX, maybe Circuit Cellar used to have a little ad in the back explaining you could obtain issues on fiche for a nominal fee, imagine having the entire print run of QST magazine in a tiny little box on your desk... Ironically ARRL sold QST on CDROM sets around Y2K and at one time or another I had most of those. QEX had better articles LOL.

          Imagine humanity when everyone has cheap desktop access to entire libraries of human knowledge. Well, instead of that we got Rule 34 and bots and ads. But the future sure LOOKED great, at least from a distance.

          • (Score: 2) by acid andy on Thursday October 31, @08:07PM (1 child)

            by acid andy (1683) on Thursday October 31, @08:07PM (#1379666) Homepage Journal

            Some years ago I had a motorcycle workshop manual on microfiche, so I bought a small used microfiche reader to look at it. No idea what happened to that. The magnification and fidelity on it wasn't great, to the point that the small technical details I needed from the diagrams couldnt really be discerned.

            If I was in charge of that library I would have insisted those microfilms were digitized before they were got rid of, at least the ones that were out of copyright. I hope they weren't just thrown in the garbage!

            --
            Welcome to Edgeways. Words should apply in advance as spaces are highly limite—
            • (Score: 2) by VLM on Friday November 01, @01:54PM

              by VLM (445) on Friday November 01, @01:54PM (#1379802)

              They do have site licenses for newspaper.com and ancestry.com so that's probably why they chucked them.

          • (Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Sunday November 03, @12:27AM

            by Joe Desertrat (2454) on Sunday November 03, @12:27AM (#1380041)

            Many courts still hold a lot of data on microfilm. If you want copies of deeds recorded 40 years ago for instance, you might have to put in a request for the data to be retrieved and wait for it.

    • (Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday October 30, @06:07PM

      by VLM (445) on Wednesday October 30, @06:07PM (#1379461)

      finding a specific use

      I think they sell the "overall system" not the media or material.

      The broadcasts techs I shared a coffee maker with some years back REALLY liked the Sony TB optical carts a decade or two ago, they were tough enough to be "broadcast tech proof" and you could certainly drive around town with one in the trunk or drop it or mail it and it would continue to work. I imagine the reputation scales linearly with failure rate, maybe people working at a site with a couple dead carts, would hate that tech. Such is the case with all storage technologies, greatest thing since sliced bread until the day it fails.

      I was thinking just a few minutes ago about applications and obviously the A/V broadcast techs and broadcast engineers loved them, but maybe backup servers are a good idea. LTO is cheaper per byte but restoral times could be VERY long because its a linear ribbon. Flash costs too much per byte and is hard to toss NVME sticks in a box and ship to the archive site. Faster than using AWS storage and doesn't use the expensive internet bandwidth. Yes I think this would be very nice connected to a backup server, maybe thru the NAS/SAN, maybe keep the backup server at a disaster recovery facility.

      In theory I think you could rip the guts out of a Sony ODA optical cartridge and stick a bunch of flash in it and replace the optical ODA drive with a USB-C port, but it would end up costing maybe 4 times as much money. Going the opposite direction LTO is cheaper per tape byte but the drives cost as much as a (very cheap) new car so there is a crossover point. I don't know how much TB-class optical drives cost although I know the media is "somewhat cheap". The broadcast techs never made a big deal about it, I would assume a TB-class optical drive costs "much less" than the professional cameras and lenses, which unfortunately IS a lot of money.

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by ShovelOperator1 on Wednesday October 30, @07:27AM

    by ShovelOperator1 (18058) on Wednesday October 30, @07:27AM (#1379410)

    There was a way to bypass the limit with wavelength - add more detectors for detecting more angles and introduce multi-depth pits. This was called ML-ROM and was developed in late 90s by, as I recall, Philips, Optex, TDK and Calimetrics, it was shown in early 2000s when they "blown" the CD to 2GB.
    There are two problems:
    First, there may be no market. Optical media, while these early ones were really long-living (I have a recorded CD from 1996 which still reads very well), became subject to various savings making them cheaper (...than MD, which was initially predicted to be the computer's recordable media as CDs were expensive) but also shortening their lifespan. Currently it's hard to get a disc that will hold for decade. For some data even hard drives become more feasible.
    Second, there is a global need for some data to not be stored for a long time. Notice these all attacks to the IA, the global adoption of ephemeral cloud drives or even mail accounts for storing everything, and preferring media streaming which is losing its contents even now. Notice that people now want to delete knowledge they shared when the commercial Internet was the free Cyberspace. Most of the "civilized and democratic" countries have banned books list. We are not so distant from issuing government licenses for large data storage.
    So, another interesting technology may emerge, but it will probably be left not used.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 30, @04:04PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 30, @04:04PM (#1379442)

    "Second, there is a global need for some data to not be stored for a long time. Notice these all attacks to the IA, the global adoption of ephemeral cloud drives or even mail accounts for storing everything, and preferring media streaming which is losing its contents even now. Notice that people now want to delete knowledge they shared when the commercial Internet was the free Cyberspace. Most of the "civilized and democratic" countries have banned books list. We are not so distant from issuing government licenses for large data storage."

    WTF???

  • (Score: 2) by Rich on Wednesday October 30, @04:59PM

    by Rich (945) on Wednesday October 30, @04:59PM (#1379451) Journal

    1.) I had to get some legacy stuff going, so I got out some old Linux DVDs (like Ubuntu 10.04) for a test installation. Impression was that the blue-dye media was already unreadable (might have been a drive issue, but a greenish dye one finally worked). Not a great outlook for long-term storage anyway.

    2.) Quick ebay check yields a pack of 10 128GB SD cards ("HIKVISION" brand) including shipping for 69.89 EUR, under 7 EUR each. They'll have to go a loooong way to match that with optical disks, not even counting in the mechanics and lasers required. Mind you, in 1981, the local computer shop was generous enough to unbundle a pack of SSSD floppies (143K) and sell me a single one for 12 DM (worth around 14 EUR today, twice the SD card).

    So this is more about "can we please have more grant money", I guess. Something useful might come from it, but I bet it won't be a CD successor.

    But I don't think there's a serious maintenance free long term storage yet, aside from laser-chiseling QR codes into granite sheets, so if their stuff is anorganic (magnesium oxide sounds like it), maybe it's worth a shot, together with a glass or crystal substrate.

  • (Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday October 30, @06:12PM

    by VLM (445) on Wednesday October 30, @06:12PM (#1379462)

    stores data by ... rare-earth element atoms embedded in a solid material

    Described this way, the difference between flash and these optical devices is the flash has smaller feature size and probably lower contaminants, but optical has moving parts, so that's your tradeoff from a VERY high level perspective.

    They're both quantum woo woo its just flash selects its bits using row and column decoders in a 2-d array whereas optical spins the quantum woo woo around in a circle in front of some funky optics to do its addressing.

  • (Score: 2) by acid andy on Thursday October 31, @08:10PM

    by acid andy (1683) on Thursday October 31, @08:10PM (#1379669) Homepage Journal

    They can pry my full tower, extended ATX system from my cold, dead hands, and this might just be key to justifying its continued service. Gotta fill all those bays with something!

    --
    Welcome to Edgeways. Words should apply in advance as spaces are highly limite—
(1)