Bumble Bee Tuna

Elvithriel-

Just because technology increases exponentially does not mean that it will necessarily go down the particular path you choose. Technology's rate of increase does not mean that I can count on there one day being teleportation devices. It does not mean I can count on there being a perpetual motion/ free energy device. Sometimes, science does encounter hard, impossible limits.
We can't make a perpetual motion machine because a fundamental law of physics says it is impossible. We cannot make this particular type of nanotechnology, according to the SI article, because of fundamental properties of the chemistry involved.

Some things are impossible, no matter what the rate of growth of technology is.

-B

fando

Because it applies chiefly to technology and not science? The main constraint on exponential technological growth is fundamental science. I don't think there's an exponential feedback loop such that improved technology will increase the rate at which we do basic research and so on, unless you buy the hand waving speculation that the technological singularity will give birth to something which will outdo us mentally. There is a limited amount of feedback, but it isn't perpetually reinforcing. Even then, exponential growth does not mean we will eventually be able to do anything and everything we can imagine. As I asked before, will we ever travel faster than light speed? We can't simply say, "yes because our technology will eventually get there." We're limited to saying, "only if we find a physics that lets us." Once we do, we can worry about building warp drives with our existing superior tech that is the fruit of exponential growth.

Dominus Paradoxum

You didn't read Drexler's response, did you? Drexler hasn't designed manipulater arms with 'fingers', so Smalley's criticisms pose no problem.

Elvithriel

Its not about following a path that "I choose", it's about following the pattern of previous advancment and the trends.

Molecular manufacturing is not impossible. Sounds like you don't really grasp what it is.

"While nano assembly has been described as "building things atom by atom," an expression that has caught on in the press, this is a misconception. Molecular assemblers will build with atomic precision by mechanically guiding chemical reactions that typically add a few atoms at a time, but some researchers have criticized this misconception as if it were the actual proposal. It is correct that assemblers can't build things by using tiny tweezers to pick up and put down atoms one at a time, but even from the start this was never the idea." - Eric Drexler

http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame...s/art0559.html

Sure there is. Each innovation makes possible the next. Take computers for example. In the old days computers were designed by hand (as in drawn with pen and paper), but now we have complex computer aided design tools so we use computers to design the next generation of computers, and so on.

Bumble Bee Tuna

technology increase, but only down possible paths. The path you have chosen is nanotechnology. I do not claim that it is possible or impossible, but merely that your argument "But technology increases exponentially!!!!!" is not valid.

-B

Elvithriel

Wait a second. You say you do not claim that molecular manufacturing is possible or impossible. Then you say that technology only increases down possible paths. So in other words, since you tell me that "technology increases exponentially" is not valid in this case, the only conclusion is that you think it's impossible. Otherwise it would be perfectly valid and we would be on the path to discovery, which I am proud to say, we are.

alek0

Huh? How can anything be manipulated using TEM (transmission electron microscopy)? I guess you mean SPM (surface probe microscopy)? Using SPM under UHV conditions individual atoms can be manipulated. Though people have mainly been using the method to spell out IBM with Xe atoms or similar extremely useful things

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for objections to Drexlerian nanotechnology, if you use chemical assembly methods, you cannot build universal assembler. You are limited on the choice of materails and geometry by the nature of chemical processes you are using. There is lots of work done on self-assembly, but no one considers that to be Drexlerian nanotechnology. If you want something universal, you have to use mechanical manipulators, which you can't use on such small scale for reasons already given before.

As for exponential increase of technology, what you seem to disregard is that not all areas increase exponentially. For example, does exponential increase in technology mean that there have been exponential development of commercial airplanes? If so, could you please explain why there have been no fundamental breakthroughs of performance improvements there for decades?

Edited to add: I think that we will see lots of progress in nanotechnology in near future, I just think it will not be Drexler-type nanotechnology. Lots of progress has been made already, and there are a number of nanotechnology based products already available commercially, but none of them is not even remotely related to Drexler's ideas of universal assemblers and dissemblers.

Elvithriel

Propellers, turbo fans, turbo jets, ram jets, scram jets

Acceptance of technology is another question. The technology is there but it doesn't make sense to design such crafts untill the technology becomes cheaper and more reliable (Hell, people are afraid of flying even now). I think Japan is working on a hypersonic turbojet/ramjet passanger plane that can travel from New York to Tokyo in 3 hours, but I'm not sure of thier success.

EDIT: Found some articles about it. Seems to be a combination turbo jet/ram jet, not a scram jet as I originally said.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/japan-hyperx-00a.html
http://www.defencejournal.com/2000/aug/concorde.htm

Wounded King

Evolution has produced an organ similiar to a wheel but I can't remember what it is, damn! It was some sort of feeding organ which ground food, it involved a rotating mass of hard tissue, but I can't remember the blooody name, aaaaargh.

It isn't the radula by the way.

Starboy

Thanks for the correction (smart)alek0. I got the details wrong but in my defence I had read about it some time ago. However we are in agreement, atom-by-atom manipulation by macro scale equipment has not resulted in anything more useful than advertisements.

I agree, self replicating anything is ragged edge science. Making any claims about future results is just wishful thinking. All that being said the progress has been spectacular and I look forward to the next developments.

Starboy