Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!nanotech From: arshad@lfcs.edinburgh.ac.uk (Arshad Mahmood) Newsgroups: sci.nanotech Subject: Re: Why I think Nanotechnology is Bogus Message-ID: Date: 28 Jun 89 21:09:40 GMT Sender: nanotech@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U Lines: 76 Approved: nanotech@aramis.rutgers.edu Silly ideas incorporated presents -> In article James.Price.Salsman@cat.cmu.edu writes: > > >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 this depends very much on whether you want to model current Von Neumann style computers in Nanotech terms, I suspect that we'll have to change our views on what we mean by computers as Nanotech offers us an unparalleld ability to build things of fiendish complexity with almost absolute precision. For instance we may see the blurring of the distinction between processor/memory. For instance can you imagine a molecule embodying a complete operating system ! If we could describe such a thing then, nanotech would allow us to build it (cf Eric Drexlers nanotech version of babages analytical engine). > I think that dreams of >embedding a typical "AI" program in an object the size of a >mitochondria is silly. I don't think you've come to terms with what nanotech can do, and the size of the potential machines we can build. > >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. What do mean by dissipate at these levels. Sources of energy for these machines were discussed a while back. > >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. Have a look at the stuff done at Texas Instruments (also in a recent issue of BYTE where Eric Drexler's machine is also described). Of course there is some real work being done on Quantum Computers (David Deutch), but most of it is very controversial (ie are you compfortable with Everret's Many Universes Interpretation) > >Sorry if this is harsh, but I'm trying for constructive >criticism. Not at all ! A. Mahmood Laboratory for Foundations of Computer Science Edinburgh University Edinburgh -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer: I never believe what I say