addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramFill 1linklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo

London Futurists Message Board London Futurists General Discussion Forum › Nano-nonsense: 25 years of charlatanry

Nano-nonsense: 25 years of charlatanry

pleasuremodel
user 11185745
London, GB
Post #: 18
Heres a interesting view on Nanotechnology:

"Later on, I actually read Drexler’s Ph.D. thesis which invented the subject. I can sum it up thusly:

* Behold, the Schroedinger equation!

* With this mighty equation we may go forth and invent an entirely new form of chemistry, with which we may create new and superior forms of life which are mechanical in their form, rather than squishy inefficient biological looking things. We shall use the mighty powers of the computer to do these things! It shall bring forth many great marvels!"

More Here:

http://scottlocklin.w...­ 25 years of charlatanry

and here: http://lachlan.blueha...­
Dirk B.
user 9941666
London, GB
Post #: 269
We already know that "hard" nanotech is possible since it's called "biology".
The proof of principle exists.
pleasuremodel
user 11185745
London, GB
Post #: 20
Biology is not quite the same thing as what is proposed by Drexler

http://www.wired.com/...­

http://cientifica.eu/...­
Dirk B.
user 9941666
London, GB
Post #: 271
Obviously not.
Biology carries a vast amount of unnecessary evolutionary and functional baggage.
Drexler and others propose a more basic form coming from the other direction - intelligent design!
I suspect the fields of synthetic biology and self replicating nanotech will meet somewhere in the middle.
Luke P.
user 12604681
Salem, OR
Post #: 35
I suspect the fields of synthetic biology and self replicating nanotech will meet somewhere in the middle.

Yeah. But after reading Soft Machines (by Richard Jones) I can see why life didn't evolve to have nanoscale gears and clockwork. If you want your bots functional in a wet, warm environment like liquid water, they need to deal with viscosity, diffusion, Brownian motion, etc. The "Fantastic Voyage" kind of nanotech (i.e. scaled down submarines and lasers) isn't going to happen.

But that doesn't rule out molecular manufacturing in general. Say you use molecular self-assembly and biomimicry to create the nanoscale components, and micro-scale robotics (perhaps under a hard vacuum and cooled to liquid helium temps) to put the pieces together.

Alternately or in conjunction, the components could be created as 2D layers via nanolithography. Life never really had access to the conditions needed for that.
pleasuremodel
user 11185745
London, GB
Post #: 21
This is quite interesting: http://www.thespacesh...­

Its a interview with Dr Bryan Laubscher he goes into more detail about Nanotech from a space elevator POV.

Powered by mvnForum

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy