
Scientists discover new mechanism for information storage in one atom - hunglee2
https://phys.org/news/2018-09-scientists-mechanism-storage-atom.html
======
gjm11
Article in _Nature Communications_ :
[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-06337-4](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-06337-4)

Press release from Radboud University: [https://www.ru.nl/english/news-
agenda/news/vm/imm/solid-stat...](https://www.ru.nl/english/news-
agenda/news/vm/imm/solid-state-physics/2018/scientists-discover-new-mechanism-
information/)

The phys.org "article" is word-for-word the same as the press release, except
that they added a link to an earlier phys.org "article" on a related topic,
which in turn was word-for-word the same as this press release:
[https://actu.epfl.ch/news/a-step-closer-to-single-atom-
data-...](https://actu.epfl.ch/news/a-step-closer-to-single-atom-data-
storage/) apart from, again, a link at the bottom to an earlier phys.org
"article" which, well, you get the idea.

~~~
jacobush
Actually I don't get the idea - are you saying the whole thing is birds of a
feather or that the Nature article is the real deal?

~~~
gjm11
Sorry, I should have been more explicit. I'm saying that _every_ phys.org
article is like this: they reproduce a press release without adding anything
to it, except for some links to other stuff on phys.org (which in turn are
just copies of press releases together with more within-phys.org links).

------
goombastic
Cool sci-fi idea would be to try doing this and suddenly discover that there
is already some "other" information there.

~~~
ASalazarMX
What if we end up corrupting parts of our simulation?

~~~
ConceptJunkie
Oh, the system has defenses. You wouldn't want to meet them in a dark alley.

------
Aardwolf
How long can the information stay in it in a stable way? Trusting your
information to single atoms sounds quite volatile

~~~
anfilt
Honestly, under ideal conditions probably a while. Outside of that not long
would be my guess.

------
pharrington
"Scientists at Radboud University discovered a new mechanism for magnetic
storage of information in the smallest unit of matter: a single atom."

This press release is aimed at a fairly technically oriented audience, so I'm
going to being very precise about why the leading statement in the press
release is wrong.

The electron is smaller, more fundamental, _more fundamental as a unit_ , and
more fundamental at a higher level of science (is in, electrons are even more
fundamental to chemistry than atoms are to physics), than the atom.

~~~
macintux
There appears to be no universally agreed upon definition of _matter_. By at
least one definition, an atom is indeed the smallest unit.

~~~
pharrington
See my reply to MrEldritch.

------
ganzuul
This is a feat of enginneering. Not a fundamental discovery of new quantum
states as I first assumed.

------
darkerside
This sounds incredible. How far away are practical application of it? And
would they likely use this Cobalt on a phosphorus substrate or something else
entirely?

~~~
integricho
50% chance this is just another stunt for fame, glory, investments, etc. and
nothing useful will come out of it...

------
godelmachine
Pardon a seemingly stupid question here, but how far away are we from
practical realization of Atomic Transistors?

~~~
Misdicorl
Simple demonstrations of 2 atom transistors have already been done (search for
Rydberg blockade rubidium transistors).

Practical applications are very, very far away. A single collision with a
molecule of air is plenty to dislodge an atom from any given internal state.
Demonstrations are all run in vacuum chambers and rely on control of an atom's
internal state.

