Elvithriel

You still don't get exponential technology trends do you? Why is this so hard for people to understand?

Elvithriel

I took "their possible existence" in your earlier post to mean mankind's possible existence. Sorry.

Starboy

Jesse, don't get me wrong. Nanotechnology is here. But there are some claims made by its proponents that I am very skeptical of. I agree with your observation that nature has created nanomachines and this is a demonstration of feasibility but IMO it is also a guide as to the possible limits of nanotechnology. After all, there is no microorganism in nature that has the ability to create complex things like telescopes and jet engines. It takes a machine composed of many specialized nanomachines working as a macro machine as you would find in a human being. Nature has been experimenting with nanomachines for several billion years now. If they were capable of performing any of the tasks the nanohopeful think is possible multi-cellular organisms probably would not have evolved. Multi-cellular creatures would be no match for such nanocreatures.

Starboy

Elvithriel

Although what if we just want to make a machine consisting of just a relatively few atoms. A planetary gear for example.

Jesse

Starboy:
Nature has been experimenting with nanomachines for several billion years now. If they were capable of performing any of the tasks the nanohopeful think is possible multi-cellular organisms probably would not have evolved. Multi-cellular creatures would be no match for such nanocreatures.

I don't think that's a very good argument--there are plenty of human inventions that don't exist in nature, probably because it would be hard to find an evolutionary path leading to them. Wheels, for example. And wouldn't organisms with jet-powered flight outcompete organisms with flapping flight? There are some organisms that use jets in the water, but none in the air. Does the fact that our brains are not quantum computers prove that quantum computation cannot work? One could list many more such examples, but the point is that you can't really say "if nature hasn't evolved it despite the obvious advantages it would provide, then it probably can't be done."

Starboy

That’s a good question. Such a gear can be made with standard microfab techniques, but such methods are hardly atom-by-atom. Has anyone made a simple gear using an atom-by-atom method such as TEM? That would be closer to what the nanoites claim will happen in the future.

Starboy

Elvithriel

Not yet.



High Res

Starboy

Is anyone getting close?

Elvithriel

Define "close"?

Nanotechnology is still in its infancy right now.

Starboy

I agree, it is a stretch. I would be happy for the nanoites to show me up. And as I said before, nanotech is here. My contention is with the fantastic claims such as self-replicating machines that will be able to do just about anything. I find that too far-fetched.

Starboy