Slashdot Mirror
Sandia Labs Venture Into Nanotechnology
Saige writes "Sandia National Laboratories and other US Dept. of Energy labs are taking up research into nanotechnology. They've issued a press release which mentions this and gives a simple overview of what nanotech is and may become. There are also a number of interesting links at the bottom to news releases about things such as self-assembled nanospheres, quantum transistors, and protonic computer memory. "
A lot of people are weighing in here with variations on "Sure nanotech sounds great, but it won't really give us immortality or most of the other things Drexler says it will." I would say that anyone who takes this position doesn't really understand the implications of this kind of technology...
First off, the only other micro-and-smaller-scale technology we know of is micro-chips. Historically this technology has not only proven its ability to exceed initial expectations, but has also had innumerable side effects on other technologies. As a result of cheaper and faster computers and other chip based electronics, we are expanding our knowledge of other disciplines at a faster clip. Nanotech almost certainly holds the same promise for cross-tech synergy.
Secondly, everyone who I have ever spoken to on this subject that had the appropriate expertise tended to be more optimistic in private than they were in writing (if that is possible). When pressed for a timeframe for a true Universal Assembler the usual reply is "No less than 2060, probably by 2040, won't be surprised if by 2020."
Now there have been plenty of technologies that didn't work out anywhere near as well as originally predicted (for example I am still waiting for the Rocket Pack and the Moon Vacation I was promised in 1970 would be mine by 2000). But those technologies have tended to be large and high in energy costs. Not so for Nanotech. Plus it has the advantage of each advance making the next level of advancement easier to achieve! Also like chip techonology if you think about it...
My take? Expect it sooner rather than later. And expect the bad things to happen as well. As opposed to the Scoffers among us, the Doomsayers actually have a point. But there is no stopping it. The next half century is going to be one hell of a ride!
Jack
- -
Are you an SF Fan? Are you a Tru-Fan?
It says a lot about how immature the world at large is when we actually need to update the list of nasty things we're not allowed to do to each other as technology advances. It's depressing in a way that this list is even a deterrent yet it is, we've got international treaties saying we're not allowed to poison each other with biological or chemical agents and so on. A sane civilization would be offended that anybody would think that they required some big list of things not to do.
I don't like the idea of a standard organization reviewing research though, the only way it could be capable of reviewing is if they are the experts in the field already. In that case things will get partisan and impede the technology. Better to at least put the technology in a fast advancement track at first and make sure it has enough momentum to keep going. Individual research areas may need controls, i.e. military applications, but that goes for any technology.
Any activist who feels threatened by Sandia has severe delusions of grandeur.
Hell, any activist who feels threatened by Sandia is welcome to come down to the Kirtland Air Force Base gates and tell them so. I've been working at Sandia the past couple summers, and there's been at least one underwhelming protest by people with more good intentions than good sense.
I remember in particular one sign to the effect of "do you feel good about your job?" I was tempted to stop, tell the person yes, and ask him what in his life has been as worthwhile as the GPS satellites and nuclear test ban monitoring satellites that my department was involved in.
But, hey, don't rule out crowd control entirely. Wasn't it Sandia or Los Alamos behind those "goop guns" that would spray sticky foam over a target and nonharmfully stop him in his tracks?
That article didn't really go into depth about nanotechnology, this web site http://www.zyvex.com/nano/ has links to pretty much anything you'd want to know about it. :)
The press release is just Sandia's way of trying to pre-position themselves for a share of the research funding that Clinton has proposed.
(Not that there's anything necessarily wrong with that. They do have a base of knowledge and experience to build on, and they do need to make the effort to get a chunk of the funding. But the press release really isn't really saying anything other than "Yeah, we want a piece of that!")
about people when they talk about Nano is the misperception about how fast Nano will revolutionize things. This is apparent in Drexler's (IMHO optimistic) work as well as the more popular Nano accounts of a Nano-driven future such as Stephenson's _Diamond Age_.
Just because we have the ability to build things at the atomic scale (which may/may not be plausible) doesn't mean that we get nifty things like immortality (There's a quote [which I can't attribute, unfortunately] in Ian McDonald's _Terminal Cafe_ that goes something like: "The first thing that nanotechnology gives you is immortality" and a response: "No, the first thing that nanotechnology gives you is reincarnation.") and cures for various cancers. Folks, we just don't understand enough about the human body to make this possible.
I think that this is money well spent, and that Nano will give us all sorts of great things... eventually. But not within 30 years, as Drexler keeps saying. It's NOT going to be instantaneous revolution with equalization of global resources and other Wonderful Things(tm), as many people think. In fact, the societies which develop Nano first could basically hold the rest of the world hostage, as in Haldeman's _Forever Peace_. Scary thing, that thought!
Think long term benefits (and problems), instead. One of the areas that I think will be most fascinating will be in material science. But biology is much more complex at this level, and we just don't know enough to monkey around with Nano right away. Probably wont for some time AFTER we get Nano.
---------The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
One of the professors at my College's Applied Science dept (the closest thing we have to engineering here) knows About Sandia's stuff. As previous posters have mentioned, they've been into nano tech and MEMS for quite some time now. He gave a special lecture about some of their research.
:) ) is really cool regardless. I guess that if I wasn't into neuroscience/comp. sci, my next field of choice might have been this.
It's quite interesting - they have a MEMS system whereby a user must enter a code to unlock the nuclear warhead for use - this code turns a series of microscopic gears/levers that raises a tiny mirror to certain angles. If the code sequence is entered correctly, the mirror is raised to the proper angle that allows a laser beam to reflect off the mirror and hit a sensor that unlocks the weapon. If the code is hit incorrectly at an sequence, the mirror is not at the proper position and the weapon is locked permanently - the only way it can be unlocked is to dismantle the weapon - a process which utilizes very specific and complex tools that only certain people/agencies have access to. I believe that this system has already been employed on US nuclear weapons - thus a foreign government/terrorist force cannot "hack" a nuke and use it.
Another thing is that many researchers in the field are a bit way of the term "nanotechnology" as it is linked with what many consider "pie-in-the-sky" wishful/unrealistic expectations - kind of like AI researchers being shy of calling their research AI due to the sometimes negative connotations with that field from the early 80's (the so-called "AI Winter") when many realized that the unrealistic hubris from earlier times regarding AI was not going to be realized anytime soon and funding was slashed dramatically.
Oh well...this kind of stuff (like that ATP-based propeller powered by Brownian motion -
Respectfully,
Kevin Christie
kwchri@wm.edu
Although nano technology has the promise of being able to build copies of itself like bacteria and indeed infect people with bacteria like infections, it is in fact a machine and not life and therefore its use in warefare is entirely lawful.
A new international conference needs to be held in order to add these agents to the list of banned weapons of war.
Otherwise we may indeed see contries developing the "grey plague."
Additionally it seems that our technology always seems to get out from under our control through the law of unintended consequences.
We need to have an international safety board to review all research in the area of nano technology and to slow down the release of wild strains of nanobots into the environment. Some will still get out, but at a slower, more manageable rate than otherwise.
-- Never make a general statement.