Slashdot Mirror

For those who actually understand real molecular nanotechnology, aka "Drexlerian" nanotechnology, you may understand that one of the real "breakthroughs" comes when you can computationally simulate the function of a 4 to 8 million atom molecular nanoassembler. Because if you can simulate one and prove that it does not violate any laws of physics then one of the classical oppositions to real molecular nanotechnology falls [1]. The argument transitions entirely from "it can't work" (common among people oriented towards "dissing" nanotech) to "you can't build one" . And as DRM, the iPhone restrictions, etc. have all shown "can't" is very swampy territory to wade into.

Now, I know if I've got 8 million cores, such a simulation is probably feasible (and presumably bandwidth limited by hypertransport data transfer rates) so the question transitions to how many atoms can one core handle and that in turn transitions to how effective the instruction set is at performing the math required for molecular dynamics simulations. So, is SSE5 any better than this or should I be lobbying AMD for SSE6 which is explicitly targeted at molecular dynamics simulations? It is not the market for business computing but it is the market that potentially millions of "nanoengineers" will fall into.

It also goes without saying that the chip manufacturers and ubergamers and SecondLife participants all have a high interest in achieving this because pushing below ~32nm using current technology is going to get very dicey at which point Moore's Law is going to have to shift from bulk atom assembly (current lithography methods) to precision atom assembly (real molecular nanoassembly).

1. There is a third argument against the simulation of a molecular nanoassembler. The argument that an atom specific design for a 4-8 million atom nanoassembler does not currently exist. The best one can point to is a few thousand atom Fine Motion Controller (http://www.imm.org/research/parts/controller/) designed by Drexler and Merkle. However the Nanoengineer software (http://www.nanoengineer-1.com/content/) from Nanorex allows one to design elements of an actual nanoassembler. If even a mere one thousand /. readers were to add 1 atom a day to the design in a distributed open source NanoAtHome.org (http://www.nanoathome.org/) type project -- the design would be complete within 1-2 years (there is a significant amount of redundancy and therefore human intellect amplification in the atom placement in a nanoassembler). You can't simulate it without designing it first -- but if one can design 400 million transistor microprocessors then designing an 8 million atom nanoassembler shouldn't be that difficult.

Of course if nobody has to work for a living (one of the points of the paper), one would have to wonder *why* people would seek out jobs as politicians, record or movie industry executives, etc. (I can't imagine those jobs as actually being "fun".) It is interesting to contemplate a Congress or offices in L.A. (or wherever the RIAA & MPAA hang out) which are completely empty... Now of course with so many more people with so much more free time on their hands one would imagine that there will be many more people engaged in creative activities, some of which may include producing many more records and movies. With so many more records and movies available, for artists to get "air time" they are going to have to give them away for free, or perhaps even "pay" people to listen to them. [If we assume each artist has 10 kg of nanorobots available, and one could live comfortably using less than 1 kg, one could "donate" ones nanorobot time to people who are willing to listen to, watch, or play songs, movies or games. This would be a form of virial marketing in the hope that some of the "paid" consumers would turn around and suggest to their friends that the product is decent and people should support the artists with donated nanorobot time (presumably via PayPal in nano-robot seconds or nano-robot kW rather than $ or yen).]

If you want to *worry* about something, worry about a corporation or the U.S. or perhaps China gaining enough of a micro/nanotechnology "edge" to allow things like ubiquitous surveilance & enforcement of their version of a "good" reality. Its bad enough when they try to enforce it in a state or country but they may try to extend it to the world (something that the U.S. comes dangerously close to now) or the solar system. Attempts by Sony & Microsoft to implement various forms of universal surveillance and/or control ("All your computer are belong to us") are examples of the tip of the iceberg in this area. One can only hope that with so much more free time people may become a little more educated and resist attempts to cast reality into a "there can be only one" mold.

Instead of "taking back the government" work towards making its actions irrelevant.
For example, one could support Nano@Home.

1. Sapphire Mansions (Understanding the Real Impact of Molecular Nanotechnology)
http://www.aeiveos.com:8080/~bradbury/Papers/SM.ht ml

There are more extensive technical discussions at nanodot.org here and here. One of the problems is that people, particularly Smalley who is a chemist cannot understand the merging of physics, biotech, nanotech, MEMS and computer science. Drexler and a few other scientists attempt to bring these all together. See particularly various comments on Nano@Home from Nov. 22-24 here.

The point should be made that the problem does not appear to be with regard to molecular or atomic assembly. As others have pointed out the ribosome performs this task quite well. As do DNA polymerase, RNA polymerase and literally all of the enzymes known to biology (probably thousands). I have on my desk a basic Biochemistry textbook (Voet & Voet) documenting the 19-step conversion process of Lansterol into Cholesterol which tends to be performed atom by atom or small molecule by small molecule. And this doesn't include the extensive number of reactions that lead up to cholesterol synthesis from Acetyl-CoA! All of these are mediated by enzymes that add or remove atoms or small molecular groups.

So the problem appears to be that Smalley objects to mechanosynthesis in a vacuum or an inert atmosphere (or even an atmosphere which will not interfere with the reactants). Yet he does not make any case for that. Even if his "fat fingers" argument was valid that would still not prevent one from creating nano-structured materials with somewhat less density. Buckyballs and carbon nanotubes are not exactly the most dense materials one can envision. He presents no strong argument with respect to the limits of what could not be constructed with "fat fingers".

The discussion from my perspective is a disappointment.

There are more extensive technical discussions at nanodot.org here and here. One of the problems is that people, particularly Smalley who is a chemist cannot understand the merging of physics, biotech, nanotech, MEMS and computer science. Drexler and a few other scientists attempt to bring these all together. See particularly various comments on Nano@Home from Nov. 22-24 here.

The point should be made that the problem does not appear to be with regard to molecular or atomic assembly. As others have pointed out the ribosome performs this task quite well. As do DNA polymerase, RNA polymerase and literally all of the enzymes known to biology (probably thousands). I have on my desk a basic Biochemistry textbook (Voet & Voet) documenting the 19-step conversion process of Lansterol into Cholesterol which tends to be performed atom by atom or small molecule by small molecule. And this doesn't include the extensive number of reactions that lead up to cholesterol synthesis from Acetyl-CoA! All of these are mediated by enzymes that add or remove atoms or small molecular groups.

So the problem appears to be that Smalley objects to mechanosynthesis in a vacuum or an inert atmosphere (or even an atmosphere which will not interfere with the reactants). Yet he does not make any case for that. Even if his "fat fingers" argument was valid that would still not prevent one from creating nano-structured materials with somewhat less density. Buckyballs and carbon nanotubes are not exactly the most dense materials one can envision. He presents no strong argument with respect to the limits of what could not be constructed with "fat fingers".

The discussion from my perspective is a disappointment.

You are not up-to-date on the literature. The questions you pose are addressed by Robert Freitas in the ever expanding body of literature on Nanomedicine. Specificially the recently published Nanomedicine V. IIA deals with biosafety issues and the 4 year old Nanomedicine V. I deals with things like power delivery and movement. If you want to educate yourself and contribute to real molecular nanotechnology, or as Drexler has recently suggested zettotech progress, (rather than simple nanomaterials which is much of what people talk about today) feel free to come on over to the Nano@Home project. We could use a few good developers.

However, the promotion of SETI@Home by anyone demonstrates they have not looked at the problem in detail.

There is reasonably extensive documentation on the probable intelligence of advanced civilizations (for example see papers by Dr. Anders Sandberg (here) or myself (here). As I have pointed out at conferences and in papers the difference between an advanced civilization and the human civilization is ~10^24 Ops. The difference between a single human and and a nematode worm is ~10^15 Ops. We don't talk to worms and advanced civilizations don't talk to us!

Furthermore the entire SETI effort does not take into account the information content of an advanced civilization. By my estimates this is of the order of 10^50 bits (probably more). One cannot communicate even an extremely small fraction of that information content across interstellar space using radio waves. They simply lack the information carrying capacity. So the SETI Institute, Drake, Tarter, Shostak, et al have sold millions of computer users (as well as Paul Allen) a "bill of goods" without having done their fundamental homework on the limits of evolution of civilizations. Why on earth would one attempt to communicate with a civilization that is fundamentally less sophisticated than a nematode worm and with whom it is impossible to exchange a significant amount of information that one has at ones disposal?

In contrast Marvin Minsky (probably one of the leading AI experts in the world) and Freeman Dyson (a brilliant mathematician/physicist who should have won a Nobel Prize for his contribution to the Tomonaga/Schwinger/Feynman contribution to quantum electrodynamics were it not for the Prize limits of 3 individuals) had this worked out in 1971 at the conference between Russian and foreign scientists at the Byurakan Astrophysical Observatory. Direct quote from the proceedings edited by Sagan:

MINSKY: Since radiation at any temperature above 3 deg. K is wasteful and a squandering of natural resources, the higher the civilization, the lower the infrared radiation. We should look for extended sources of 4 deg. K radiation. There should be very few natural such sources.

DYSON: I don't quite go along with this but to some extent you are right.

Minsky obtaining a concession from Dyson is significant. It has been ignored by the "radio waves from aliens" camp. They *will not* be trying to talk to us. But we *might* be able to observe them in the IR detection region. (Unfortunately IR detection is difficult to do from ground based telescopes.)

So the bottom line -- reallocate your spare computer resources to projects like folding or in the future to Nano@Home. SETI@Home is never going to succeed. It is based on outdated fantasies. Telescopes like the failed WIRE mission or the recently launched SIRTF *may* be able to detect alien civilizations but efforts such as SETI@Home are pointless until such time as the supporters make the case that advanced civilizations would want to waste their time communicating with sub-worm civilizations.

Robert

Robert