Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!iuvax!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!nanotech From: James.Price.Salsman@cat.cmu.edu Newsgroups: sci.nanotech Subject: Why I think Nanotechnology is Bogus Message-ID: Date: 24 Jun 89 05:04:42 GMT Organization: Carnegie Mellon Lines: 59 Approved: nanotech@aramis.rutgers.edu Why I think Nanotechnology is Bogus. By James P. Salsman. First, I think nanotechnology is bogus, because I think that information requires finite space. I believe that there is a fundamental volume that a "bit" must occupy in order for it to be stable as a memory cell. I think that dreams of embedding a typical "AI" program in an object the size of a mitochondria is silly. Second, I think nanotechnology is bogus, because I think that energy requires finite space. I believe that there is a fundimental volume that an "electron volt" must occupy in order for it to be stable and not dissipate. I think that dreams of embedding enough energy for self-duplication in something th size of a mitochondria is possible, because, after all, that's what mitochondria have spent the last billion years of evolution learning how to do. However, I do not think that humans will ever be able to construct anything smaller than a mitochondria that is still capable of self-duplication and still have energy left over to do other things -- like, run an "AI" program. Finally, I think nanotechnology is silly because all of the very-very-very-small logic gate technology I've read about seems too Newtonian-mechanincal and not very well grounded in quantumelectrodynamics that form the laws of nanophysics. Sorry if this is harsh, but I'm trying for constructive criticism. :James P. Salsman (jps@CAT.CMU.EDU) [Well, James, we know that the nuclei of atoms contain information, because a helium atom remains a helium atom and does not "forget" how much mass and charge it has. Indeed we can ionize it, stripping its electrons, and then replace them and it's still a helium atom. The nuclei are orders of magnitude smaller than the atoms we're talking about. There are limits to information storage, but they are in terms of energy (as compared to a background temperature) and they are well understood by ordinary engineers, much less the people who are designing nanomachines. You must realize that on the atomic scale, higher energy means *smaller*. The nucleus is much more energetic than the electrons. X-rays have a smaller wave length than light. This comes straight from E=hv (excuse the ascii!). So there is certainly no physical principle blocking us in this direction, simply engineering challenges. The mechanical logic designs you have seen are mechanical so that we know that they will work; they are "counterexamples against the argument of impossibility." That they do not *use* quantum principles in their operation does not mean that they do not account for them in their design. Indeed, it is quite likely that real nanocomputers will not be mechanical, for the same reason that real computers are not mechanical. But mechanical computers have been built and do work. --JoSH]