From 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.
Nice response. As for ultimate limits, see 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.
Comments
"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?
You may be able to store more than one bit in each atom.
From 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.
Nice response. As for ultimate limits, see 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.
I'm not quite sure I understand. Wouldn't a single atom as it is, the smallest particle possible?
I think conanite means subparticles, e.g. from an atom to a neutron.
Also bits and quarks etc.