Or what if it's a niche technology that works just fine at scale in the real world but nobody cares enough for super long lifetimes to pay the higher price for the equipment?
No "bad history of claims," just niche technology.
Not everything has to be "fake news" or "phony" just because it doesn't take over the world.
I can't help but think we're cheapening the idea of fraud when we accuse every company or technology of fraud just because they don't wildly succeed.
I think you're overreacting, or perhaps going off on a bit of a tangent from what I actually said. I didn't accuse anyone of fraud. I even offered kudos. I'm just trying to adjust expectations because the history is indeed bad even if nobody did any wrong. Would it have been better if I'd said "sad" or "unfortunate" instead?
A medium that really has these kinds of density and survivability traits is indeed a great thing, but "niche" is a bit of an understatement. Adding it to the payload of a multi-million dollar rocket is definitely a publicity stunt, so I think it's entirely fair to point out that it might be good for little else depending on how further development plays out.
It wasn't a publicity stunt by the University. Preserving knowledge over extreme periods of time is the whole point of the Arch organization (which is not for profit). It's weird, maybe not practical, but it's the whole point.
Also, such rockets often just use a mass simulator (i.e. block of concrete or metal) on inaugural flights, so there's nothing wrong with giving it a shot.
If you don't launch it into space, it will be destroyed when the sun engulfs the earth in only six billion years, if not earlier. There's a dismayingly large chance that the only thing surviving from our entire culture in only a few million years will be a mass extinction in the fossil record, a halo of geosynchronous metal debris, and whatever data is encoded in such stable forms as these glass discs.
In that context, describing it as "a publicity stunt" seems short-sighted to the point of self-parody, like a small child who thinks that the main distinguishing feature of money is that you can buy candy with it. In a very short time, it is likely that the only things humanity has done that are even detectable are the launching of satellites, a mass extinction, and the launching of such archival media.
I know it's fun to call people short-sighted and compare them to children, but grow up yourself. Sending something in this particular medium was a publicity stunt, and it worked. You think we're talking about it here for any other reason than Elon Musk was (tangentially) involved? Sending some sort of beacon or memorial into space is such a great idea we've done it many times before, with better-tested media. If we wanted to try something newer, a Rosetta Project disk would have been a much more obvious choice.
The real issues involved here are the Laws of Thermodynamics, Entropy and 'Glass' (Crystals) being the the most stable state of matter in the universe. All of these indicate that such longevity is possible (see my main post).
Clearly, the reason that '13.8 Gy' is used here is that it's a well known time interval and it puts the longevity of this technology into perspective in ways that many will understand.
If actually achieved in practical terms then we ought to be hailing this work as a remarkable effort—not quibbling about trivia and silly incidentals.
Glass is the opposite of crystals. Crystals would presumably be longer-lived, but their anisotropy makes them somewhat trickier to work with. Otherwise I agree, and like you, I'm profoundly disappointed by the level of "notacoward"'s comments in this thread so far.
You're right of course. I've assumed the stuff would necessarily be crystalline (and would have to be to have such longevity). The word 'glass' here being used for easier digestion by the public. (See my longer post for more details.)
The Rosetta Project disks have a much shorter expected lifespan and weigh more, so they're less practical.
Since I've been talking about the Rosetta Project and related initiatives for about 15 years, long before Elon Musk was involved, you're also mistaken to assert that "we're [not] talking about it here for any other reason." I mean, I'll take your word that it's true of you, but it's not true of me. Maybe you've got a mouse in your pocket?
Are you assuming publicity is bad? I certainly never said so, and would appreciate it if you wouldn't interpret my words as negative based on your own misapprehension. Arch Mission seems like a good cause, and publicity in a good cause is a good thing.
No "bad history of claims," just niche technology.
Not everything has to be "fake news" or "phony" just because it doesn't take over the world.
I can't help but think we're cheapening the idea of fraud when we accuse every company or technology of fraud just because they don't wildly succeed.