Star Trek has superior data storage?

[Isolder74]

But thats not what you said and since you were quoting me that means I am entitled to respond. Your post implied that I was not talking on subject when I was. Please be more clear in the future it will save us both alot of headaches

What do you mean? I was quoting Mike originally about speed and efficency, then you said something about storing memory on nuerons, I said that it had nothing to with what I was talking about, which it wasn't. I didn't quote you until you made the unrelated comment about snail nuerons and then only to tell you that it wasn't related to what I was talking about.

And you sensor me in an attempt to get it back on topic?

[Gil Hamilton]

And you sensor me in an attempt to get it back on topic?

"Sensor" you? What the hell are you talking about? If you were looking for the word "censor", I wasn't doing that either.

[Lord of the Farce]

WESLEY: I've been working on my final project for Advanced Genetics. It's on nanotechnology. And I've been studying the nanites we have in the Sickbay genetic supplies. They're just like tiny little robots with gigabytes of mechanical computer memory, tiny enough to enter living cells and conduct repairs. They're supposed to be strictly confined to the lab.

[Hethrir]

...and a tiny brain of a droid carries 6 million languages.

plus protocol for each, the ability to translate with grammar, fuzzy logic, learning to learn etc...demonstrated far more effectively than Data, who seems only able to work with what knowledge he has.

[ClaysGhost]

plus protocol for each, the ability to translate with grammar, fuzzy logic, learning to learn etc...demonstrated far more effectively than Data, who seems only able to work with what knowledge he has.

Whilst the memory advantage is very clear for SW, I think that this bit is slightly mad. Data has demonstrated the ability to learn. If he couldn't learn new information, he wouldn't be much use, would he?

"What can you tell us about this Borg ship, Data?".
"I don't know what you mean by 'Borg'. Does it make you feel good to talk about 'Borg'?"
"Don't you remember our encounters with the Borg?"
"No, because I cannot learn anything new for the purposes of Hethrir's demonstration."
"Oh. Fuck off, then."
"May I quote you the current time to ten decimal places?"
"I thought you'd learned to stop quoting figures to excessive accuracy at people."
"No, because I cannot learn anything new for the purposes of Hethrir's demonstration."
"Continue to fuck off."

Data's an AI. The droids in SW are AIs. Because they are all AIs, and not static knowledge bases with attitude, they have certain general abilities in common, like the ability to learn. Before I'm inevitably jumped on, I'll point out that starships in SW and ST have some general abilities in common, like the ability to retain atmosphere and get people from A to B. Doesn't mean they have equivalent performance, does it?

[Darth Wong]

WESLEY: I've been working on my final project for Advanced Genetics. It's on nanotechnology. And I've been studying the nanites we have in the Sickbay genetic supplies. They're just like tiny little robots with gigabytes of mechanical computer memory, tiny enough to enter living cells and conduct repairs. They're supposed to be strictly confined to the lab.

Mechanical computer memory?!?!?

[Warspite]

Mechanical computer memory?!?!?

You know, relays opening and closing...

[Xon]

WESLEY: I've been working on my final project for Advanced Genetics. It's on nanotechnology. And I've been studying the nanites we have in the Sickbay genetic supplies. They're just like tiny little robots with gigabytes of mechanical computer memory, tiny enough to enter living cells and conduct repairs. They're supposed to be strictly confined to the lab.

Mechanical computer memory?!?!?

Bit shocking isnt it...

We do know Startrek can ignore Heisenberg's uncertainty principle almost at will. If you can loer/ignore Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, you can make mechanical devices much smaller since there isnt any/reduced quantum interferance.

[omegaLancer]

It not impossible that nanobot would not use a form of mechanical memory. It basic computering function would be something like the old babbage machine/engine or the old ( pre electronic) IBM accounting machines that relied on a series of gears and punch cards.

In this case a nanobot would use a nanocomputer:
A computer with mo­lec­u­lar-sized switching elements. Designs for mechanical nanocomputers which use single-molecule sliding rods for their logic have been proposed.

For example, suppose that you build a nanocomputer using diamondoid rods of a few thousand atoms apiece as the computer elements; they click against each other, mechanically, and thereby implement transistors and logic gates - an extremely miniaturized abacus

The memory would take the form of a serie of mechanical switches.

Another method could harness DNA /RNA and use the molecule itself as a computer and as memory:

For 'hardware,' the computer uses two naturally occurring enzymes that manipulate DNA. When mixed together in solution, the software and hardware molecules operate in harmony on the input molecule to create the output molecule, forming a simple mathematical computing machine, known as a finite automaton.

This nanocomputer can be programmed to perform several simple tasks by choosing different software molecules to be mixed in solution. For instance, it can detect whether, in an input molecule encoding a list made of 0's and 1's, all the 0's precede all the 1's.

'The living cell contains incredible molecular machines that manipulate information-encoding molecules such as DNA and RNA in ways that are fundamentally very similar to computation,' says Prof. Shapiro of the Institute's Computer Science and Applied Mathematics Department and the Biological Chemistry Department. 'Since we don't know how to effectively modify these machines or create new ones just yet, the trick is to find naturally existing machines that, when combined, can be steered to actually compute.

Now in the case of DNA, it has already been used in the role of as a microcomputer and it is believed that it easily has the potential to rival any possible future quantum computer.

[omegaLancer]

by the way:

Dna Memory. DNA stores memory at a density of about 1 bit per cubic nanometer. This is about a trillion times more efficient that videotape. [*]


* from http://www.mitre.org/research/nanotech/ ... or10367640 by J. Christopher Love and James C. Ellenbogen, MITRE Nanosystems Group

[Xon]

omegaLancer, no dice.

These suckers are small enough to enter a cell without destroying it.

That means they have to be significantly smaller than cell todo this.

If they can do this with Red blood cells( which are ~20 microns in size) then they would probable be 1/10 of the size to enter & operate in the cell with out destroying it.

[ClaysGhost]

It not impossible that nanobot would not use a form of mechanical memory. It basic computering function would be something like the old babbage machine/engine or the old ( pre electronic) IBM accounting machines that relied on a series of gears and punch cards.

Actually, I think there's a more recent example involving IBM. This is one mention of their work on a mechanical memory for computers:

http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20000913S0061

They claim some quite impressive figures for its capabilities.

Now in the case of DNA, it has already been used in the role of as a microcomputer and it is believed that it easily has the potential to rival any possible future quantum computer.

I'm not sure about that. I know they've solved the travelling salesman problem using a DNA computer, but it took a few hours for the reaction to proceed, didn't it? Mind you, this is probably no worse a disadvantage than the instability that foreseeable quantum computers would exhibit outside anything but the most isolated environments.

[Xon]

by the way:

Dna Memory. DNA stores memory at a density of about 1 bit per cubic nanometer. This is about a trillion times more efficient that videotape. [*]

There is 10^6 cubic nanometers in 1 cubic millimeter.

So in 1 cubic millimeter, there is 10^6 bits or ~122 kb.

about 6 million GB per cubic millimeter of storage

Notice the difference. All ~12 orders of magnitude difference.

[CJvR]

Wouldn't the transporter buffers in trek require an almost infinite datastorage capacity?

[ClaysGhost]

Wouldn't the transporter buffers in trek require an almost infinite datastorage capacity?

Interesting (not infinite, but high). The ships must also have to store details on objects that replicators can produce down to the scale of molecules. However, I don't think it's known what size the computer is that stores all these things is. Is it?

[ClaysGhost]

There is 10^6 cubic nanometers in 1 cubic millimeter.

So in 1 cubic millimeter, there is 10^6 bits or ~122 kb.

about 6 million GB per cubic millimeter of storage

Notice the difference. All ~12 orders of magnitude difference.

I think this difference is because you should actually have:

10^9 cubic nanometres in 1 cubic micrometre (10^3 * 10^3 * 10^3)
10^9 cubic micrometres in 1 cubic millimetre (10^3 * 10^3 * 10^3)

10^9*10^9 = 10^18 bits in one cubic millimetre of storage.

[Xon]

There is 10^6 cubic nanometers in 1 cubic millimeter.

So in 1 cubic millimeter, there is 10^6 bits or ~122 kb.

about 6 million GB per cubic millimeter of storage

Notice the difference. All ~12 orders of magnitude difference.

I think this difference is because you should actually have:

10^9 cubic nanometres in 1 cubic micrometre (10^3 * 10^3 * 10^3)
10^9 cubic micrometres in 1 cubic millimetre (10^3 * 10^3 * 10^3)

10^9*10^9 = 10^18 bits in one cubic millimetre of storage.

You sure?


10^-3 milli m
10^-6 micro µ
10^-9 nano n
(source)

1 cubic nanometer is 10^-9 cubic meters
1 cubic millimeter is 10^-3 cubic meters

So wouldnt the difference be 6 magnitues, not 18?

[Xon]

Oops. I see were I went wrong.

Your right it should be 10^18 bits in one cubic millimetre of storage.

Which works out to be ~166gb in one cubic millimetre of storage. Or 27.6 times higher information desnity.

But a DNA strand cant do anything by itself, and requires a lot of external support. This will bring the information density down incredibly(easily by dozens of orders of magnitues possible more)

Were as the nanites are completely self-contained independance agents.

[omegaLancer]

Well GGS I was sure that your original figure was wrong, but then I alway get confuse with the whole cubic thing, hell the square feet and yard matter with carpeting trend to send me to look for my scientific calculator.

But on your object to baggage model of Nanocomputers, by using rod logic



you can get for random access memory, you should get nanosecond access times with 5 cubic nanometers per bit, or allowing for overhead, a density of about 10 to the 20 bits per cubic centimeter. That's more information in a cubic centimeter than people have written down since they started making marks on papyrus.

Not bad....

[omegaLancer]

Oops. I see were I went wrong.

Your right it should be 10^18 bits in one cubic millimetre of storage.

Which works out to be ~166gb in one cubic millimetre of storage. Or 27.6 times higher information desnity.

But a DNA strand cant do anything by itself, and requires a lot of external support. This will bring the information density down incredibly(easily by dozens of orders of magnitues possible more)

Were as the nanites are completely self-contained independance agents.
_________________

Actually in the case of DNA computers they trend to be pretty self supporting they act as CPU,Memory and as a power source. They would need a lot less supporting devices than any other methods..

[SPOOFE]

Maybe Star Wars just has a superior version of Winzip.

[omegaLancer]

[/quote]quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now in the case of DNA, it has already been used in the role of as a microcomputer and it is believed that it easily has the potential to rival any possible future quantum computer.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I'm not sure about that. I know they've solved the travelling salesman problem using a DNA computer, but it took a few hours for the reaction to proceed, didn't it? Mind you, this is probably no worse a disadvantage than the instability that foreseeable quantum computers would exhibit outside anything but the most isolated environments.

The traveling saleman problem ( A subset of Hamilton path problem)is one of the most tasking problems of mathematic. Involving parallel processing.

In the case of the Hamilton path the little tube of DNA computed the problem in less than a week, a Cray supercomputer solving the same problem would have required a thousand years.

As for a Quantum computer, who knows how long it would take, as it stand They still havenot got to the point of actually be able to getting any near solving such a complex problem yet.

[TurboPhaser]

plus protocol for each, the ability to translate with grammar, fuzzy logic, learning to learn etc...demonstrated far more effectively than Data, who seems only able to work with what knowledge he has.

Whilst the memory advantage is very clear for SW,

*snip*

No, it isnt. If it was then this page wouldnt be 3 pages long.

[NecronLord]

Wouldn't the transporter buffers in trek require an almost infinite datastorage capacity?

Interesting (not infinite, but high). The ships must also have to store details on objects that replicators can produce down to the scale of molecules. However, I don't think it's known what size the computer is that stores all these things is. Is it?

No, there's something mysterious called "energy" and once it's lost, the data in the transporter is useless (it's in Wong's database.)

[Lord of the Farce]

Whilst the memory advantage is very clear for SW,

*snip*

No, it isnt. If it was then this page wouldnt be 3 pages long.

Based on information provided by NecronLord and some information I've found on the net (though I'm a bit suspicious of it) concerning quads, I have some new calculations based on quads:

Assuming that quads actually mean double (instead of square) of bits, then the Voyager's total computer core of about fifty billions of teraquads comes to around 1.25E+22 bytes, or around 1/160,000,000 the minimum storage capacity of the Wedge's Gamble computer core.