Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!bcm!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!nanotech From: erich@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Erich Stefan Boleyn) Newsgroups: sci.nanotech Subject: Re: Is this stuff for real? Keywords: reality nanotech questions Message-ID: Date: 1 Mar 91 04:32:35 GMT Sender: nanotech@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 96 Approved: nanotech@aramis.rutgers.edu ms@pogo.ai.mit.edu (Morgan Schweers) writes: > How much of nanotechnology is vaporware/dreaming? Can anyone point me >to a solid and *REALISTIC* exploration of PRESENT DAY research on this topic? [...questions deleted...] > Any other information on the *REALITY* of nano-hacking would be greatly >appreciated. What do you mean by "nanotech"? I've seen some quite fascinating ideas spun on this group, some with considerable technical sophistication to it, but I wonder how realistic people are about bringing it about (are they too hooked up on the dreams?). There are some of us who are at least interested in working on the *REALITY*, and are preparing. IMHO, there seems to be a surprising number of people on this group interested in interdisciplinary studies, which seem to me to be the best way to get there. I have few illusions as to my own ability to understand all the complexities involved. Just a little molecular genetics can dampen one's spirits fast unless one is willing to stick it out. > P.S. I've read Blood Music, and consider it nonsense. I've also read > a book named something like Down The Sea Of Stars (or something-similar) > and it's nano-techs seem to make a *LITTLE* more sense. (but not much) David Brin gives a rather pessimistic, but plausible (given other precedents set in history) view of nanotechnology in "Earth". In short, it says that they are very specific and need to have absolutely *pure* nutrient baths... and even then can only produce repeating units of some sort, like a crystal. Apparently the rest is from the editor [JoSH...], I guess: [...encouraging comment deleted... ;-)] > With that caveat, the short answers: > Assembly/disassembly: Cells (both bacteria and cells that are part > of larger organisms) do this all the time. Nanotechnology simply > presumes that we can translate mechanical design concepts to the > same scale. Ack! Have you studied any molecular genetics? (well, you probably have ;-) IMHO, there seems to be a definite lack of mention just how radical a *transformation* of concepts would be necessary to achieve such a translation of scale. What I know of molecular genetics seems to clearly indicate that the mechanisms involved are many orders of magnitude more complex, even in the prokaryotic case (single-celled organisms). Many people resist the notion of parallel computing (at least doing the parallelizing work themselves), much less having to work with complex automata-like systems. Now, of course, this doesn't stop some of us die-hards from trying anyway ;-). > Programmability: Similarly, cells have a "program" in their DNA. > We are assuming that the structures of formal computation can be > reproduced at a molecular scale. The nanocomputer, in a crude > mechanical version, is actually the most complete actual nanotech > design so far. A *program*?!? Arghh... although I will grant you that it *can* be called a "program" per se, this has no reference as to the encoding of this program. Needless to say, it is neither linear, nor easily decodable. This doesn't account for the fact that these programs are perhaps meant to have more (and different) long-term functions than anything we currently have. Lately, I have been considering the concept of what I call "minimal encodings", sort of like packing the most information possible into a set of instructions. It seems that an information theoretic-like attack on this problem might have some interesting leads. Again, the concept has to undergo radical revision. > Movement: In many envisioned applications, the nano-robot floats > around at random in some solution, making desired contacts with > raw materials and other nanobots stochastically. Otherwise it > could crawl or have propellors. This seems reasonable. There is a question of how generally the forms of the "raw materials" would take... remember that our own assembly systems are easily fooled by look-alikes in building proteins... stochastic systems, even in their most specific forms, can still in many cases be fooled, especially as they get sufficiently small. > ETA: Optimistically, 200x. It does depend on the amount of effort > expended to that end. Could we land a man on the moon before 2000 > (starting from where we are right now)? Will we? This very much depends on what we want to work for... and how much we do about it. Discussion is, of course, encouraged. I also am very interested in getting the discussion into details/ideas of substance. Erich "I haven't lost my mind; I know exactly where it is." / -- Erich Stefan Boleyn -- \ --=> *Mad Genius wanna-be* <=-- { Honorary Grad. Student (Math) }--> Internet E-mail: \ Portland State University / >%WARNING: INTERESTED AND EXCITABLE%<