Re: Nanotechnology Redefined


In article <11qmuprs2eno1ee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, perry@xxxxxxxxxxxx
says...
>
>
> "Tom" <cyclintom@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > Well, originally I was reading all of the papers concerning
> > manufacturing atomic scale mechanical computers. After careful thought
> > I decided this was poppy***.
>
> If molecular machines are poppy***, how do you explain your own
> existence? You're filled with molecular machines -- ATP synthase,
> ribosomes, kinesin, etc., etc. Life itself depends on molecular
> manufacturing and huge numbers of molecular machines.
>
> I'm unaware of anything in physics that makes atomic scale mechanical
> computers outside of the realm of possibility. They may take quite
> some time before we have them, and molecular electronics may prove to
> be superior, but there is no cause to assume that they are
> "poppy***".

This depends on the definition of poppy***. Lots of things are
physically realizeable, but never will be because the economics,
engineering, or whatever are silly, mistaken, or misguided.

It's an open question whether or not mechanical digital computers are
poppy*** in that sense. Drexler outlined his reasons for talking about
mechanical computers back in 1992, but the idea that they'd be developed
before nanoelectronic variants (implied, but not actually stated) has in
fact proven to be quite wrong.

(I say implied because Drexler seemed pretty dubious about the prospect
of being able to do the required QM modelling for nanoelectronics.
Well, it's 13 years later and we have several molecular prorotypes, but
no mechanical work that could really be considered "nano" that I'm aware
of.)

I think a lot of the stuff I read regarding nanotechnology, even if it
might be physically allowable, is poppy***.

--
John S. Novak, III
The Humblest Man On The Net

.

Quantcast