I'm still annoyed by the fact that the base unit for mass is prefixed. They should've just made up another unit that's equivalent to the kilogram and go from there, or just use the grave.
But what if we get to 1000 quetta-? We don't need any more prefixes. We just simply combine the existing ones in a place-value scheme. For example, the Sun is 2 quettakilograms, a star 500 times the Sun's mass is 1 quettamegagram and so forth. After quettaronna- would come biquetta, where we use chemical prefixes to denote how many quetta there are. So a biquettakilogram is 10^63 grams. When we get to the hundred prefix, one could use adapted English, huna for one hundred and tousa for thousand. This gives us for quantities so large and small that we don't need any new prefixes (except maybe huna and tousa).
I was just wondering last night when they were going to add new prefixes. I wasn't searching for it, just thinking it. So Googles spy stuff to recommend relevant content is getting a bit too on the nose. Heh. It was in my "discovery" list when I open a new tab.
@@brauljo We still do stuff like undecillion, and duodecillion. There appears to be no reason not to do so, as it saves unused letters for prefixes in the long run…
Well, the way DRAM stores data, a bit is stored as the capacitive charge in the gate of a MOSFET. The gate acts like a very small capacitor. I'm not sure about the 5nm node MOSFETs they use in modern CPUs, but in much larger, discreet MOSFETs the capacitance is still only a few picofarad. But the point is when that capacitance on the MOSFET is holding a bit, it's charged up basically like a very tiny battery. It's a bit confusing, I know. But when the capacitance of the gate is charged, negatively charged electrons flood into one side of it, while the other side has electrons pulled away from it creating a positive charge equally opposite to the negative charge on the other side. So you have an excess of electrons on one side and a lack of them on the other. Those electrons have weight so I'm assuming that's what they're talking about. You can do some simple math to find how many coulombs of charge of the MOSFET's capacitance holds at the voltage it's at. And since charge is directly proportional to how many charged particles (electrons) you have, you can take the charge value and figure out how many electrons would create that much charge. And then work out how much mass that many electrons has. And yes this is not an easy thing to explain or understand. You need a good bit of background in computer science, physics and electronics to understand even the explanation. This is stuff most people don't get to until 2nd or 3rd year university so don't feel bad if you're confused. If you're really set on understanding it, the best thing you can do is write down any terms in this post you don't understand and learn about them one by one. And take it slowly. Here are some terms that will help you get started. Wikipedia, and the textbook on allaboutcircuits.com will have info on these. Voltage, charge, current, power capacitors, capacitance, transistors, field effect transistor (fet), jfet, mosfet, multivibrators, sram and dram. In more or less that order. Remember to take your time. Best of luck! And take a break if you have to.
@@VoidHalo this is a fantastic explanation, I can't thank you enough! I hope I got this (at least to some extent) right already, that the weight of data is matched (or corelated) to the weight of the particles needed to store the information in the capacitors (like MOSFETs). Thank you again, kind regards!
OK on the "digital storage" part... no. IT will be forced to adapt a perversion of the decimal prefixes to binary, and we will see those as measures of storage (eg "Tebibyte" or TiB instead of the deprecated and not-quite-equivalent "Terabyte" or TB). Quantum physics and any and all real sciences aren't going to continue to adapt increasingly-cringe-sounding prefixes but instead stick with simpler and unbounded exponential notation.
"Quantum physics and any and all real sciences aren't going to continue to adapt increasingly-cringe-sounding prefixes but instead stick with simpler and unbounded exponential notation." Why the hell not? The prefixes we do have are practical and efficient. Please just stop. Also, what do you mean by "real sciences"? That's a very questionable assertion. Metrology is a real science.
Looks like these people just want to show off their new prefixes!😂 Just like a boy who likes to show off his new shoes, or a girl who likes to show off her new dress!
