Slashdot Mirror


Maxwell's Demon Soon A Reality?

DMiax writes "Reuters reports that a group of scientists from University of Edimburgh may have realized a nanomolecular engine - a Maxwell's Demon. The device selects and traps other molecules based on their direction of motion. Physicist James Maxwell first imagined the nano-scale device in 1867, and the research team cites him as the basis for their understanding of how lights, heat, and molecules interact. The device is powered by light, and may spur advances in nano-scale technology to new heights in coming years."

148 comments

  1. Possible to make unlimited energy? by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Wikipedia article goes to great lengths to explain how the demon can't violate the 2nd law -- that it must delete information, which increases entropy. Okay. But what keeps it from violating the 1st law: that energy is conserved?

    1. Re:Possible to make unlimited energy? by Control+Group · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Because the demon isn't increasing the energy of the system, it's simply sorting it. The total heat of the system doesn't change, it just goes from equilibrium to a gradient. The demon isn't conceptually picking out molecules and throwing them, it's deciding which molecules to let pass based on velocity. The energy is all in the molecules already.

      --

      Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
    2. Re:Possible to make unlimited energy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because it doesn't ever make more energy? I mean you could extract some energy with the heat differential... but as the article says it takes energy to measure the speed of the particles and open and close the gate. You might be able to increase the potential energy of a gas slightly but it is really just using the energy more efficiently, not making more.

    3. Re:Possible to make unlimited energy? by Stile+65 · · Score: 4, Informative

      You're correct, but creating and keeping a gradient also requires energy. That energy is given to the rotaxane molecules in the form of photons.

      --
      I claim first use of "Error No. 0B" - or "No. 0B error." It'll be the new ID 10T!
    4. Re:Possible to make unlimited energy? by Stile+65 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sorry, better reference is here.

      --
      I claim first use of "Error No. 0B" - or "No. 0B error." It'll be the new ID 10T!
    5. Re:Possible to make unlimited energy? by eklitzke · · Score: 1

      This is a result of Gauss' law, which is a standard result in vector calculus. This is a mathematical proof about continuously differentiable vector fields. If you took vector calculus in college you probably proved it. For the potential to not be differentiable would be _really_ degenerate case, which IIRC you just assume doesn't happen because there are standard formulas for different potentials (e.g. electric potential, gravitational potential) and all of them are well behaved.

      --
      #include ".signature"
    6. Re:Possible to make unlimited energy? by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 2, Funny

      Good point. Yours *is* pretty big.

      Now, as for my question, did you have a relevant comment to add?

    7. Re:Possible to make unlimited energy? by Dilaudid · · Score: 2, Informative

      The reason the wiki article goes on about the second law (entropy increases) is because the first law (energy is conserved) is seen as being fairly obvious, e.g. a ball will never bounce higher than the level it was dropped from, and the first law applies both forwards and backwards in time. The second law is weird, since it is time inhomogeneous (entropy increases when time goes forward, and therefore would decrease as time goes backwards), and it seems to be more a statistical result than a scientific one.

      It's interesting to note that the first law, conservation of energy, is not true within General Relativity within any bounded region, due to the existence of gravitational waves. Here's an article about it http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/G R/energy_gr.html/. I provide only this as evidence that I'm not talking out of my arse - I could understand GR once, many years ago, but not now.

    8. Re:Possible to make unlimited energy? by Falstius · · Score: 2

      Nuh uh! See, the article says "His mechanism traps molecular-sized particles as they move. As Maxwell had predicted long ago, it does not need energy because it is powered by light." So light isn't energy and we all know the article is already right. What preschool do they get these science writers from?

    9. Re:Possible to make unlimited energy? by loki_tiwaz · · Score: 1, Interesting

      imho the laws of thermodynamics are perfectly functional but the third one - no addition or subtraction (oh wait is that the first, conservation? damn i don't even know, maybe i should read wikipedia so i can say something useful) - what about division. i know, in transistor logic subtraction is implemented as multiple subtractions (or have i got that wrong, i know multiplication is implemented that way) but in mathematical terms making more by cutting everything into smaller pieces means you respect conservation of energy. in that idea i am suggesting that relativity is a loophole in thermodynamics. i don't understand why this has not been noticed before, maybe it has but i have yet to hear of anyone else suggesting this. there's some other aspects like finite but unbounded space and the puzzing mechanism that might be behind any such division process (second harmonics, but also more harmonics, if one assumes a wave mechanics model).

      in any case this sounds like a fancy form of polarisation being it filters particles by velocity (in the physics sense of direction and speed) and if it works on photons why not atoms too?

    10. Re:Possible to make unlimited energy? by Andrew+Kismet · · Score: 1

      it does not need additional energy, beyond the energy that would have been otherwise wasted heating up some grains of sand in a desert, for example.

    11. Re:Possible to make unlimited energy? by radtea · · Score: 1

      But what keeps it from violating the 1st law: that energy is conserved?

      "the conservation of energy is a consequence of invariance under time translations".

      This is a specific result of Noether's theorem, and has been known since the 1920's but rarely gets mentioned in the popular press. For the specfic case of energy conservation, Noether's theorem implies that unless the form of the Lagrangian (the fundamental mathematical object underlying the equations of motion that govern a system) is explicitly time-dependent, then the Hamiltonian (which represents the total energy of the system) is conserved.

      The form of the Lagrangian is determined by the laws of physics, which we are pretty sure do not change with time. Ergo, we are pretty sure that energy is strictly conserved (even more sure than we are from masses of empirical observations that confirm this to be the case.)

      If anyone claims to have a machine that violates the first law, the question to ask them is, "What law of physics is changing with time?"

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    12. Re:Possible to make unlimited energy? by momomao · · Score: 1

      That article is way too concise and ambiguous. First of all, the article claims the device doesn't use energy because it uses light. Hello???!!! I guess solar power isn't energy either and if I power my house with solar panels, then it also doesn't use energy because it uses light. Also, the article makes one brief statement saying the device captures molecule sized particles. THis by itself doesn't mean jack with respect to Maxwell's demon because it didn't specify the initially conditions of the environment. Obviously, if there's a huge concentration of this particular molecule in the environment, then entropy and the concentration gradient would naturally force an influx of molecules into the trap. What Maxwell's demon implies is that there are somehow less conc. of the stuff outside then in so that whenever this molecule sized device is open, the molecules naturally tend to flow out and escape instead of flow in.

  2. It's neat, but it's not Maxwell's Demon by Control+Group · · Score: 5, Informative

    Maxwell's Demon was a thought experiment about the possibility of violating the second law of thermodynamics, not a thought experiment about sorting molecules. The idea was that the entropy of the system could be decreased by the demon selectively moving fast molecules from one side of the box to the other, thereby concentrating heat.

    This tech is certainly a mechanism for such sorting, but it's powered by external light, so the entropy of the system has not decreased and the second law isn't violated. So, while it's mechanically similar to Maxwell's Demon, it's dissimilar in concept (or should I say, "in spirit" - we're talking about demons, after all).

    Of course, TFA doesn't have Leigh claiming that they've come up with Maxwell's Demon, just that he "credits Maxwell for establishing the fundamentals for understanding how light, heat and molecules behave."

    None of this is to say that this isn't an impressive feat, and of obvious value in terms of furthering the science/technology of nanomachines, but calling it Maxwell's Demon is missing the whole point of the original thought experiment.

    [this text added to waste time between hitting reply and submit]

    --

    Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
    1. Re:It's neat, but it's not Maxwell's Demon by mattjb0010 · · Score: 1

      ... and the original though experiment said nothing about nanotechnology, either (maybe only in implication).

    2. Re:It's neat, but it's not Maxwell's Demon by Necronomicode · · Score: 1

      OK, this is slightly outside my field but I'll throw it out for comment.

      Simply, in a closed system we only have the energy contained within that system to play with, anything else destroys the entropy laws. However, what about good old Heisenberg's uncertainty principle that allows us to use some energy for a brief time as long as we give it back.

      Could this be used as the power for the demon? Surely this does not break energy conservation rules but may allow the demon to change states. Demon construction might be a challenge.

      And as another concept, can we apply the same principle to light i.e. only let through light with higher frequencies etc. Demon construction in this case may be somewhat simpler - although I guess we're outside Maxwell's idea somewhat.

      This all sounds quite intertesting - much more so than the gcc cross compiler toolchain I'm trying to build, still I suppose it could be worse ;-)

  3. Light coming in? by DarthChris · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I may be wrong in this, since I haven't studied thermodynamics since I was doing my A-Levels, but I believe that the light coming in and powering it directly violates the setup for Maxwell's Demon. Can someone confirm or deny this?

    --
    Don't you just hate it when people reply to your signature?
    1. Re:Light coming in? by Control+Group · · Score: 5, Informative

      Pretty much, yes. The idea of Maxwell's Demon was to violate the second law of thermodynamics - once you include an external power source, its entropy increase has to be included in the system, and now you've just got a heat pump. Doing it on the nanoscale is Really Neat(tm), but it's not Maxwell's Demon.

      But then, TFA doesn't have Leigh saying that it is Maxwell's Demon, just that he credits Maxwell with furthering science.

      --

      Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
    2. Re:Light coming in? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Well, I think it's obvious that I qualify (see user name) :-)

      There's a nice quote from the article:
      "As Maxwell had predicted long ago, it does not need energy because it is powered by light."
      If light is not energy (or more exactly, does not carry energy), then I conclude that solar cells are violating the first law (because solar cells are powered by light and output energy).

      However, for being an entropy-decreasing Maxwell's Demon it would suffice that there's no energy transfer from the light to the gas (or at least not enough to create that additional entropy through heating up), and in addition that there's no entropy transfer from the gas to the light (because if the light is simply carrying away entropy, it's no problem for the entropy of the gas to decrease; that's just a normal cooling process). It's especially the second part I strongly doubt: It would require the light not to be scattered from the molecules (and of course it also may not be absorbed, because that would violate the first condition). And I'm very doubtful about that.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    3. Re:Light coming in? by kfg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's right. Maxwell's demon is a demon. A supernatural being not subject to the laws of physics. He can arbitrarily effect the system without being affected by it. Thus there is no widening of the sytem by his introduction and no feedback effects from his actions. That's the whole point of him.

      Maxwell's demon could sort a mixed bag of apples and oranges into two bags of apples only and oranges only while preserving an apples and oranges system.

      If you sort a bag of apples and oranges the system is one of apples and oranges and you. I presume you are not a demon; despite what I may have heard.

      KFG

    4. Re:Light coming in? by maxwells_deamon · · Score: 2, Funny

      Poser!!!! ;-)

      It's all a matter of being extremely nearsighted.

      Well, I got to go back to my sorting.

  4. Ah, I love mass media science reporting by hairykrishna · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Journalist misses whole point of Maxwells demon, news at 11"

    --
    "Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
  5. Medicinal Uses by Ace905 · · Score: 0

    This looks to me like a promising step towards machinery for cleaning arteries. I imagine it won't be past our own life-times (we that aren't close to dead) before technology like this silently and efficiently ensures we never die of clogged arteries, strokes, blood clots.

    Then we can sit in front of our computers all day long eating cheesy nacho's and injecting ourselves with nano fat collectors.

    Mmmmm... nachos.

    --

    Ace
    1. Re:Medicinal Uses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interestingly, we already have micros-sized versions of these: they're called foam cells. Problem is, then they get stuck and give you coronary artery disease. So the problem might be cleaning the arterial wall and safely transporting the junk through the bloodstream and out of our bodies as waste...

    2. Re:Medicinal Uses by Ace905 · · Score: 1

      What we need is a foam-cell with a small chunk of unreacted potassium enveloped in a bucky-ball attached to it, with a detonator mechanism.

      "Oohhh, jeeez my chest feels like it's on fire"
      "You're probably just getting over a heart-attack... drink some milkshake, it'll cool ya down"

      ---
      speaking of milkshake

      --

      Ace
    3. Re:Medicinal Uses by dbIII · · Score: 1

      This looks to me like a promising step towards machinery for cleaning arteries.

      No - that's a bicycle :)

      It's actually pleasantly surprising to see a press article titled nanotechnology which is actually on the topic. Drexler et al were not talking about sub-micron particles in toothpaste when they used the term.

  6. Now this... by IAstudent · · Score: 3, Funny

    is what I call a Maxwell's Demon

  7. I thought.. by Talonator · · Score: 4, Interesting

    .. that the point of the Maxwell's Daemon was to illustrate a hypothetical 'perpetual motion' machine which would generate gradients with no energy input.

    In the classical example, the Daemon sits at a gate between two chambers, where both are filled with particles of random velocities. When a slow particle approaches from the left or a fast one from the right, the Daemon keeps the gate shut. When a fast one approaches from the left or a slow from the right, however, the Daemon opens the gate and lets the particle pass, thus passively generating a gradient of slow/fast particles.

    As to its 'energy from nothing' nature, it's been shown that the actual switching could occur with zero energy use, but (I believe) the act of resetting the Daemon's velocity measurement device would require some energy.

    Long story short, the reason that the idea of a Maxwell's Daemon is important is not because it's a nanomechanical switch, but because it was thought to be an anti-entropic system with no energy use. The actual action that the Daemon was performing is quite irrelevant, and so I take offense at the title of this story. That's all.

    1. Re:I thought.. by QuickFox · · Score: 3, Funny

      The actual action that the Daemon was performing is quite irrelevant, and so I take offense at the title of this story. Mod parent funny. He expects accuracy on Slashdot.
      --
      Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
    2. Re:I thought.. by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      I fairly scientifically literate and yet I've never understood the point of Maxwell's Demon. The first time I heard of it I thought, "That's stupid, why is he ignoring the work the Demon is doing?". I still think that. Am I missing something? Does this thought experiment really teach us something about physics? If so I don't see it.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    3. Re:I thought.. by susano_otter · · Score: 1

      So... Where does Maxwell's demon's energy come from?

      Hell?

      I mean, if the demon is performing an action, and it's not taking energy from the system in order to do so, then what? Might as well say, "any perpetual motion machine can be made to work... with magic".

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    4. Re:I thought.. by bdonalds · · Score: 1

      "...the point of the Maxwell's Daemon..."

      Will it run as a service on Windows?

      --
      The most important thing to do in your life is to not interfere with somebody else's life. -FZ
    5. Re:I thought.. by Ceriel+Nosforit · · Score: 1

      Sure the demon can know the speed, and sure it can know its position, but can it know both at the same time?

      --
      All rites reversed 2010
  8. WTF? by arkham6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is this article written for scientific morons?

    "it does not need energy because it is powered by light."

    As I understand it, the object the demon works on has to be isolated from the universe. If this 'demon' is powered by light, its not isolated, because outside influences are acting on it.

    I think maxwell's thought experiment still stands, thanks come again.

    1. Re:WTF? by OldChemist · · Score: 1

      I share your amazement. I thought E = hv or E = mc2 So powered by light means no energy required? Gaggg...

    2. Re:WTF? by RMB2 · · Score: 1

      I am also completely baffled by that statement in TFA; to my knowledge, light IS a form of energy. This statement clearly suggests that the author thinks it is not.

      Beyond my disgust with Patricia Reaney's (author) obvious lack of scientific understanding, the point of Maxwell's Demon is that he can SELECTIVLY allow passage of molecules of different energies, not to "capture molecules" as the article describes. While interesting, that is NOT the point at all; by using knowledge of the state of the particles, the Demon is able to alter the distribution of particle momenta in two different chambers, thus changing the energies, specifically kinetic energy (i.e. temperature).

      The reason the original thought experiment remains exactly that, and unrelated to the discovery in TFA, is that it implies either intelligence AND molecule-altering capabilities, or some violation of thermodynamic laws would be required. I don't mean to disparage the discovery, it may well be valuable to nanotechnology in its own right, but it is NOT, in my estimation, a creation of Maxwell's Demon.

      Additionally, I remember playing some simple "game" with a bunch of balls flying around, in a box, and all you could do was click to make the wall separating the box in half disappear. There were counters to indicate the "energy" on either side. Anybody know what I'm talking about (it's not Maxwell's Maniac, it was simpler than that)

      --
      [/sarcasm]
    3. Re:WTF? by Torvaun · · Score: 1

      Jezzball. Using walls to separate the area which had balls from that which did not.

      --
      I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
    4. Re:WTF? by RMB2 · · Score: 1

      Nope, it's certainly not Jezzball, although somewhat similar. What I'm thinking of isn't so much a game as a "simulation"; there are maybe 500 balls, and the a single middle barrier (which you can open/close) and the average energies of both sides are displayed on the top.

      --
      [/sarcasm]
  9. Nanotechnology by Lazerf4rt · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Leigh believes nanoscale science and engineering could have a huge impact on society - comparable to the impact of electricity, the steam engine and the Internet.

    But quite how, is difficult to predict.

    So far, the biggest impact of nanotechnology on society is that society is full of geeks who swoon at the idea of nanotechnology being the future. Why are so many nerds just dying for the nanotechnology future to get here? What's wrong with the present?

    Things that seem like a Harry Potter film now are going to be a reality.

    I thought the inspiration for nanotechnology came from Sci-Fi books and Star Trek. Now Harry Potter is the big inspiration?

    1. Re:Nanotechnology by Rycross · · Score: 1

      I thought the inspiration for nanotechnology came from Sci-Fi books and Star Trek. Now Harry Potter is the big inspiration?

      There was some quote in reference to writing sci-fi by some author. Can't remember the source.

      "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
    2. Re:Nanotechnology by wiggles · · Score: 1

      Why are so many nerds just dying for the nanotechnology future to get here?
      Get your answer here.
    3. Re:Nanotechnology by Lazerf4rt · · Score: 1

      You mean from a Sci-Fi book?

    4. Re:Nanotechnology by dreddnott · · Score: 1

      I believe that quote is properly attributed to Arthur C. Clarke.

      --
      I may make you feel, but I can't make you think.
    5. Re:Nanotechnology by cowscows · · Score: 1


      Why are people talking about alternative fuels? Why do people worry about a sustainable future? What's wrong with sticking with oil?

      Why are so many people fascinated by space travel? Fuck going into space. What's wrong with Earth?

      Why are so many techies talking about new hardware? What's wrong with the computer you have? What more you could possibly want?

      You're right. Today is perfect. I hope nobody ever events anything new ever again. That wouldn't be cool at all.

      What's the matter with you?

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    6. Re:Nanotechnology by Jerf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What's wrong with the present?
      The present is freaking awesome . There are entire new categories of awesomeness that didn't even exist a hundred years ago, and it's getting better all the time. If I even started listing them, I'd sound utopian, even though it's not an unrealized future I'm describing, but the actual present. There is no-when I'd rather live, if I can only select from the past, and assuming I don't get to chose who I'd end up as (an assumption that people frequently sneak in; are you sure you want to live in 1500 if you are almost certain to end up a dirt-poor peasant somewhere or other?).

      But since the present actually exists, we can see its problems. As freaking awesome as it is, it is still far from perfect.

      But the future doesn't actually exist as anything but our dreams. So, natually, it has no problems. So the future is even awesomer, and the present sucks to the extent that it doesn't live up to my awesome future dreams.

      People who have actually taken a look at the future in a clear-eyed way say it'll still have problems, and it's still anybody's guess as to whether they'll be bigger or smaller than the problems of today. Still, since staying in the present doesn't really seem to be an option, it seems we'll find out. One thing's for sure, we won't be jumping straight to a mystical paradise anytime soon.

      In the meantime... enjoy what is here and what you have. If you're certain the present sucks, it will... for you. Why add the misery of thinking everything sucks more than it actually does to the still-real misery that life often offers you?
    7. Re:Nanotechnology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    8. Re:Nanotechnology by Lazerf4rt · · Score: 1

      You're right. Today is perfect. I hope nobody ever events anything new ever again.

      Strawman alert! I never said today is perfect. I merely asked a question. The implied meaning took place entirely in your mind. You just got trolled!

    9. Re:Nanotechnology by feepness · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with the present?

      Because in the future we will have much better tools for creating a better future.

    10. Re:Nanotechnology by Lazerf4rt · · Score: 1

      Four books? Yikes. Couldn't you just sum them up for me? I see they're fantasy and not Sci-Fi... Do they fall into the Harry Potter-side of the inspiration?

    11. Re:Nanotechnology by cowscows · · Score: 1

      You're right! Your question could not have possibly implied anything at all! You said something stupid, but since it's mildly ambiguous, no one can justifiably comment on it!

      In fact, here's a comic someone made that touches on this point:

      http://www.xkcd.com/c169.html

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    12. Re:Nanotechnology by Lazerf4rt · · Score: 1

      You're right! Your question could not have possibly implied anything at all! You said something stupid, but since it's mildly ambiguous, no one can justifiably comment on it!

      That straw man sure says a lot of things on my behalf.

    13. Re:Nanotechnology by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Why are so many nerds just dying for the nanotechnology future to get here? What's wrong with the present?

      Because full blown nanotechnology means you can pretty much BitTorrent real objects. You just download the datafile for an object, and everything from food to cars to computers to houses could be created at will for everyone virtually for free - grown out of raw dirt and solar energy. You could even BitTorrent a RealDoll for example.... not that that is particularly relevant to why so many nerds just dying for the nanotechnology future to get here and what's wrong with the present.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    14. Re:Nanotechnology by treeves · · Score: 1
      I thought the inspiration for nanotechnology came from Sci-Fi books and Star Trek. Now Harry Potter is the big inspiration?

      Neither. If you have to have a single source inspiration, it would have to be Richard Feynman, 1959.

      http://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/feynman.html was the first search hit on Google.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    15. Re:Nanotechnology by ichigo+2.0 · · Score: 1

      You asked "Why are so many nerds just dying for the nanotechnology future to get here?" and got your answer. If your new question is in reference to your second question about sci-fi and Harry Potter, then I ask you why you had to ask the first question if you already knew the answer to it. Any questions?

    16. Re:Nanotechnology by TempeTerra · · Score: 1

      >>Things that seem like a Harry Potter film now are going to be a reality.

      >I thought the inspiration for nanotechnology came from Sci-Fi books and Star Trek. Now Harry Potter is the big inspiration?

      "To any sufficiently retarded person, technology is indistinguishable from magic" -- Not Arthur C Clarke

      --
      .evom ton seod gis eht
    17. Re:Nanotechnology by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 1

      Why are so many nerds just dying for the nanotechnology future to get here?

      Dying is a big part of it. To me, the most exciting nanotech applications are medical. When you get down to that scale, you can send your little robots in and they can perform DNA repairs on individal cells. You don't have to worry about arteriolsclerosis anymore because little machines can just drive in through an IV, collect the fatty deposits on the blood vessel walls, and leave with them through another. Cancer is easy to fix when you can just kill each individual cell and drag it out through the blood. Weight problems can be cured by an office visit; spend a few hours hooked up to a machine and whatever fat you want can be removed, including abdominal fat that can't be reached by liposuction. Gerontology researchers will have better tools, and eventually, medical immortality may be possible; if not, living a couple hundred years doesn't seem that far-fetched.

    18. Re:Nanotechnology by Lazerf4rt · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the straightforward answer. I was aware that death was a big part of the motivation. It's certainly something I've agonized over in the past as much as anyone. Maybe even more. But since then I've learned that death is, in fact, not something to fear. Here is one book which puts it better than I am able to, and it isn't sci-fi or fantasy. If, 10, 20, 50 years from now, we can continue to expand our lifespan, that would be neat and everything, but I don't think it's sensible to view life extension as some kind of victory in the battle against the evil spectre of death. And that appears to be a common viewpoint among nanotech-hopefuls.

    19. Re:Nanotechnology by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 1

      No, not sci-fi or fantasy, but religion. I looked at Buddhism for a while because I like their relatively thoughtful, contemplative approach (I like the Quakers for the same reason), but I eventually decided I'm too attached to my own identity (and memories and knowledge) to be interested in Buddhism's goals, whether they're right or not. I'd rather have continued reincarnation than Nirvana.

      I don't know that I exactly fear death so much as that there are a lot more things that I want to do than I can get to in the next 50 years or so.

    20. Re:Nanotechnology by Lazerf4rt · · Score: 1

      Well, it's actually cool that you say you don't want Nirvana. Religion is like psychotherapy, and Buddhism in particular I think, in that it's a temporary medicine for people who feel like they need something more or something's missing. And I find it interesting that nanotechnology attracts the same kind of audience (example).

      I was attracted to Buddhism also, but I sensed that it was full of a lot of crap about "eightfold path" and "realms of existence" and stuff. But it eventually led me to meditation and I got a surprising little epiphany out of that. I just remembered what it felt like to have no name and less desire to influence people, and just be a guy sitting in a room. It's not like I totally lost my name and my identity... I just felt the way I always used to feel as a kid. It was cool and I got a lot out of it. But then again, I was quite desperate to get something out of it, at the time.

    21. Re:Nanotechnology by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 1

      Probably the single biggest draw for religion is a desire to avoid having everything just end at death. For most people, religion answers that; for those of us who do not believe, the same motivation still exists. It's not nanotech that can answer that, but medical immortality; nanotech is just a very likely path to it.

      Nanotech is probably also necessary for the level of space colonization that medical immortality would eventually necessitate.

    22. Re:Nanotechnology by syukton · · Score: 1

      So far, the biggest impact of nanotechnology on society is that society is full of geeks who swoon at the idea of nanotechnology being the future. Why are so many nerds just dying for the nanotechnology future to get here? What's wrong with the present?
      In the present, you have to make a conscious effort to exercise in order to maintain a healthy weight. In the present, you need to modify your diet in order to lower your cholesterol. In the present, cancer kills you before you even know it's there (or shortly thereafter, as happened to a friend of mine). In the nanotechnology-enabled future, nanobots patrolling your body will render these situations null and void. In this optimistic future, we will have nanobots to burn excess fat for us or maybe prevent it from being absorbed in the first place. We will have little 'bots patrolling our bloodstream that clear clots and blockages and deposit them into our stool. The future will bring us little 'bots that will try to kill the cancer for us, and if it can't, it will warn us about what is going on so that we can treat it as soon as possible. We will have monitoring systems that allow us to get a daily or even hourly or even minute-by-minute readout of our health in much the same detail that a full physical with X-rays or MRI scans would provide us. The hope of the nanotech future is good health without having to even really think about it.

      Things that seem like a Harry Potter film now are going to be a reality.
      I thought the inspiration for nanotechnology came from Sci-Fi books and Star Trek. Now Harry Potter is the big inspiration?
      "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -- Arthur C. Clarke

      One of the fairly major advances that I'm looking forward to is wireless brain-computer/brain-machine (and even brain-brain) interfaces, which is on the same level as telekinesis or telepathy. The notion of nanobots to take care of all of my cells dividing indefinitely, killing off cancer, and so forth brings about fantasies of immortality. I ask you, where is the immortality in Star Trek? Dumbledore was ~160 years old when he was killed, that is pretty far outside the "normal" lifespan for a human being in most time periods.

      Nanotechnology also offers us the ability to evolve more rapidly than we ever have before. Evolution could very well cease to be a slow and seemingly random event and could become very rapid and deliberate, with each new generation exhibiting increased stamina, disease resillience, and so forth. "Genetic engineering" as that may be called was outlawed in the Star Trek universe and genetically engineered individuals were disallowed from joining Starfleet.
      --
      Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
  10. Edinburgh - Not Edimburgh by nucleartool · · Score: 1

    Sorry, proud Scottish fella... They may take our lives but they will never take out freedom!

    1. Re:Edinburgh - Not Edimburgh by teslar · · Score: 1

      You obviously missed the news that to celebrate and deepen the French-British relationship, names of cities on either side of the channel are changed to contain one half of the French and one half of the English name - hence Edimbourg + Edinburgh = Edimburgh

      Of course you will not notice this in the name of every city. Londres + London for instance still gives London :)

      :)

    2. Re:Edinburgh - Not Edimburgh by Billy+the+Mountain · · Score: 1

      I thought it should have been Edamburgh, but that would be sort of cheesy.

      BTM

      --
      That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
  11. Off Topic - But WTF is Opinion Center Intel by Ranger · · Score: 4, Informative

    Today, I see this Opinion Center with Intel under it. I check my Preferences to see if I can select other Opinion Centers or turn it off. I can't. So I go and take a look. It's a paid advertiser section. That's fine, but please label it for what it is, a Paid Sponsor Section. It's not an opinion center.

    Mabye there's a place to make a comment or complaint about this, but it wasn't obvious so I posted it here.

    --
    "You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
    1. Re:Off Topic - But WTF is Opinion Center Intel by cowscows · · Score: 1

      I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the likely response you'll get from the editors will be very similar to the text of your sig.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    2. Re:Off Topic - But WTF is Opinion Center Intel by cain · · Score: 1

      And in the upper right corner do a mouse-over of the intel link in "Opinion Center: Intel". You are treated to a moronic marketing article brought to you by the "OSTG Marketing Dept". Annoying. And no way to get rid of it. Marketing is evil.

    3. Re:Off Topic - But WTF is Opinion Center Intel by PoderOmega · · Score: 1

      And I see the Vendor's section with AMD in it is gone as well. I guess Intel put up enough cash to beat out AMD and get a misleading section name.

    4. Re:Off Topic - But WTF is Opinion Center Intel by Ranger · · Score: 1
      Sadly, I noticed that too. I am reminded of a quote which I will paraphrase:

      Wikipedia defines the OSTG Marketing Dept. as "a bunch of mindless jerks who'll be the first against the wall when the revolution comes,"
      --
      "You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
    5. Re:Off Topic - But WTF is Opinion Center Intel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can hide it by clicking the little down-arrow just to its left. Just like, well, almost any other control ever that has down-arrows like that.

    6. Re:Off Topic - But WTF is Opinion Center Intel by cain · · Score: 1

      No - your other right. Look under "Why Subscribe" under the search bar on the right.

    7. Re:Off Topic - But WTF is Opinion Center Intel by illuminatedwax · · Score: 1

      Hey! Take your opinions over to the Free Speech Zone, buddy! We don't want 'em here!!

      --
      Did you ever notice that *nix doesn't even cover Linux?
    8. Re:Off Topic - But WTF is Opinion Center Intel by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      Since there is a lack of an appropriate place to discuss this disturbing and unwelcome new addition to Slashdot, I've decided that I'll just start spamming the Opinion Center until they do something about it. I recommend you all do the same. Maybe if Intel sees enough hate spewed their way they won't want to have that thing there since it will be filled with negativity. I won't be surprised in the least if Taco comes out and says our only option for removal is subscribing to /.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    9. Re:Off Topic - But WTF is Opinion Center Intel by zobier · · Score: 1

      Personally, I'd prefer slashvertisements to me marked as such and not passed off as real stories, so I'm OK with it. Now if they'd just follow suit with the others and not just one vendor's.

      Cue the greasemonkey in 3, 2...

      Oh, and the current story in there is Give Intel a Piece of Your Mind, go on... do it.

      --
      Me lost me cookie at the disco.
  12. Not actually a Maxwell Demon... by kebes · · Score: 5, Informative
    Let's get the pedantic "This is not actually a Maxwell Demon" comments out of the way first. The original thought experiment of Maxwell's Demon was to suggest a hypothetical creature/device/demon that could watch molecules and make decisions based on what those molecules were doing. By watching the motion of molecules, the demon could open/close a flap and thus sort molecules by kinetic energy. This would allow the demon to generate a hot gas out of nowhere, without any energy input. This would thus contradict thermodynamics (which states that entropy always increases, etc.).

    The reason that such a demon cannot be created is that the very act of making an observation (of a gas molecule's trajectory, for instance), requires the usage of energy. And on the scale we're talking about, that usage of energy is exactly the 'work' you are doing to raise the temperature of the gas in sorting the molecules. Thus no such thing as a maxwell demon can be made, and thermodynamics is intact.

    This most recent report, as stated, requires an input of energy to move/sort molecules. Thus it doesn't violate thermodynamics and it's not really a Maxwell Demon. The article seems a bit confused on this issue, stating:

    As Maxwell had predicted long ago, it does not need energy because it is powered by light.
    I would content that the light is an input of energy, and thus saying "it does not need energy" is rather silly.

    In any case, the actual research (see David Leigh's page) is about photo-activated molecular shuttles: molecules that switch between well-defined states with input of light. You can thus trap or move other molecules using light. Certainly one step towards the much-anticipated "nanotechnology" but not quite the fine control of molecular positions one would imagine when using the term "Maxwell Demon."
    1. Re:Not actually a Maxwell Demon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The reason that such a demon cannot be created is... on the scale we're talking about, that usage of energy is exactly the 'work' you are doing to raise the temperature of the gas in sorting the molecules.

      The reason you've provided seems like a technological limitation, not a fundamental law of physics. Couldn't you theoretically have extremely heavy gas molecules and a nano-device that performs observations using low-energy photons that barely disturb the gas molecules? Couldn't a Maxwell's demon working on macroscopic-sized superballs be demonstrated?

      BTW my understanding is that the idea of Maxwell's demon is not to create energy out of nothing, but rather a way to cheaply extract the thermal energy out of a hot gas and end up with a cold gas and a more useful form of energy, like electricity.

    2. Re:Not actually a Maxwell Demon... by kebes · · Score: 1

      my understanding is that the idea of Maxwell's demon is not to create energy out of nothing, but rather a way to cheaply extract the thermal energy out of a hot gas and end up with a cold gas and a more useful form of energy
      You're right, and thermodynamics tells us these things are related. If you can find a way to reverse the flow of entropy, that's a way of creating "useful energy" out of "useless energy". Thus you could create electricity using just the ambient temperature around you. But, since thermodynamics says that entropy always increases, this is in practice not possible.

      The reason you've provided seems like a technological limitation, not a fundamental law of physics.
      I agree it sounds like only a technical problem, but if you do the calculation you will find that it is actually a very fundamental limit. There are established limits in information theory, for instance, that describe the minimum amount of entropy you'll need to creat in order to encode information. Basically if you look at it, the demon would have to do something in order to: (1) determine the velocity of a molecule, (2) decide what to do, and (3) open/close the flap. These actions will increase the entropy of the demon far more than he's decreasing the entropy of the gas (by sorting the gas molecules).

      Remember it's not just a matter of disturbing the gas molecules, it's a matter of the demon itself needing to increase in entropy in order to make the measurement. Although your hypothetical 'macroscopic-sized superballs' may be easier to sort, the amount of entropy decrease you'd get by sorting them would be very very small, and would be offset by the increase in entropy in the observer.
    3. Re:Not actually a Maxwell Demon... by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      Did you honestly just suggest that measuring the velocity of an object (by shining a light on it) consumes as much energy as is in a the kinetic energy of a moving massive object? That doesn't pass the laugh test.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    4. Re:Not actually a Maxwell Demon... by gardyloo · · Score: 1

      Couldn't a Maxwell's demon working on macroscopic-sized superballs be demonstrated?

            Yes, and according to some, it will be achieved when scientists dump a bunch of concrete spheres into a mud volcano in the nearish future.

    5. Re:Not actually a Maxwell Demon... by kebes · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well you have to a little careful here. The argument relates not to energy per se, but the energy dispersal, i.e.: entropy. That's why I said 'usage of energy' instead of simply 'energy.' It turns out that entropy increase in the demon is larger than the entropy decrease you get by sorting gas molecules.

      The argument would be the same with massive objects. If you attempt to devise a way to generate a low-entropy situation using "massive moving objects" then I assure you that there will be a corresponding increase in entropy elsewhere that will offset it. (Remember that a fast-moving object has high kinetic energy, but this doesn't say much about the entropy of the system it is a part of.)

    6. Re:Not actually a Maxwell Demon... by not-admin · · Score: 1

      No, he suggested that the process of measuring the velocity AND THEN storing, analyzing, and acting upon that observation will create as much (or more) entropy as the device will eliminate in the particles.

    7. Re:Not actually a Maxwell Demon... by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 1

      These actions will increase the entropy of the demon far more than he's decreasing the entropy of the gas (by sorting the gas molecules).
      This is related to the Von Neumann-Landauer limit which specifies how much heat you have to dissipate to reset your Maxwell's Demon to a pristine state after it has made a decision. This in turn is related to Reversable Computing, which seeks to improve the energy efficiency of computers by avoiding such resets wherever practical.
      --
      Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    8. Re:Not actually a Maxwell Demon... by NeuralSpike · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Ummm... cite your source please (if only so some of us can figure out what you're talking about).

  13. It's not Edimburgh by gkAndy · · Score: 1

    It's Edinburgh.

    --


    --
    Andy
    1. Re:It's not Edimburgh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could you come to the point? I have to go feed my cat.

  14. But can it play the guitar? by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one who the only one who thought TFA was about a bisexual space alien rock star?

  15. A little late for the demo.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First demonstration of Maxwell's demon was in 1928. The principal has been in commercial use since then.

    For more info: (sorry guys don't know how to make it link.)
    http://www.exair.com/vortextube/vt_page.htm?source =google&group=vortextube

    1. Re:A little late for the demo.. by Radon360 · · Score: 1

      A little more of a direct link to the info on the vortex tube.

    2. Re:A little late for the demo.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except its not a Maxwell's demon, because you're increasing entropy when you compress the air.

  16. His other not-so-famous work by 0xABADC0DA · · Score: 4, Funny

    Pity the researchers weren't able to create Maxwell's lesser-known "Angel", a device that -- using no power at all -- sits on a barrier and sorts molecules based on their goodness. All matter composed of "charm", "up" and "top" quarks collect on one side, whereas matter composed of the hateful 'strange', 'down', and 'bottom' quarks collect on the other.

    This would totally change the world in the short term by finally providing a means to mass-produce holy water, and eventually even purifying the entire world of 'evil' particles (ie collect all the hateful particles together, send them up on the 'space elevator to heaven' and launch into the void).

    1. Re:His other not-so-famous work by isaac · · Score: 4, Funny

      Flavorist! That strange quark never got to chose to be strange - it was just made that way. It's not fair to discriminate on that basis.

      -Isaac

      --
      I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
    2. Re:His other not-so-famous work by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      This would totally change the world in the short term by finally providing a means to mass-produce holy water, and eventually even purifying the entire world of 'evil' particles (ie collect all the hateful particles together, send them up on the 'space elevator to heaven' and launch into the void).

      Leading to the eventual clash between us and whatever planet our huge ball of quantum-mechanically perfect evil lands on.

      Which would be sweet. This is the best plan ever.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    3. Re:His other not-so-famous work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Leading to the eventual clash between us and whatever planet our HUGE ball of quantum-mechanically perfect evil lands on.

      Sounds like you have more of a 'the world is half evil' kind of personality. Myself, I believe 'the world is half good'. Bush? He's more of a 'half world good' kind of guy.

  17. Consider by HomelessInLaJolla · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Most of the Maxwell's Demon experiments deal with particles which are assumed to be infinitely small and particles which are one iota larger than infinitely small.

    Consider Maxwell's Demon operating on entire galaxies at a time. An infinitely large mass (typified as a black hole) has a much larger gravitational field than a mass which is one iota less than infinitely large. If Maxwell's Demon were a gravitational capacitor (ie. its effect is only realized when the gravitional field resulting from a mass exceeds a certain level but exhibits no behavior up to one iota less than that gravitational field) then the Demon could, possibly, move out of the way and selectively allow the object of infinite mass (eg. a black hole) to pass while reflecting all objects of lesser mass.

    I first proposed a similar theory years ago when working for Abbott Laboratories.

    --
    the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
    1. Re:Consider by durandal42 · · Score: 1

      How exactly did you propose to do anything *but* allow an object of infinite mass to pass by? (Stick another infinitely massive object in its path? How do you move that one? etc.)

    2. Re:Consider by Slashcrap · · Score: 1

      An infinitely large mass (typified as a black hole) has a much larger gravitational field than a mass which is one iota less than infinitely large.

      1. A black hole doesn't have necessarily have infinitely large mass. It's mass is the same as whatever formed the black hole in the first place. I suspect you know that, but a lot of people will read that sentence as, "black holes have infinite mass".

      2. It won't have a "much" larger gravitational field, it will have an infinitely larger gravitational field. Because as you just said, one object is infinite and the other is one iota less than infinite, so not infinite at all.

      But I'm just criticising your wording. I'm not good enough at either maths or physics to prove that you can change the size of the objects, or the demon, or any of the other conditions as much as you want and it still won't help you to violate the laws of thermodynamics. Someone else can do that.

    3. Re:Consider by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "..I first proposed a similar theory years ago when working for Abbott Laboratories..."

      and they've just recently let me out of the asylum.....

    4. Re:Consider by HomelessInLaJolla · · Score: 1

      The only thing novel about my proposition was the perspective of viewing the Maxwell's Demon. If you have access to underground.pnnl.gov you can read a much more titillating writeup which I posted while working for Battelle.

      --
      the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
  18. That's interesting by AlphaLop · · Score: 1

    but I wonder if this tech could be used to make a much more efficient solar cell?

    --
    It's only paranoia if your wrong...
    1. Re:That's interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To power a fridge?

  19. Start command by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Forget thermodynamics, is the command to start the demon /etc/init.d/maxwell start?

    1. Re:Start command by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      /bin/maxwelld: Entropy fault.
      Process Therminated.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  20. Lack of diagrams by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 5, Funny

    I notice there wasn't a schematic or diagram of the engine, but I scoured the web and managed to find one.

    Here it is:

          .

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
    1. Re:Lack of diagrams by oftencloudy · · Score: 0, Redundant
      whoa whoa! that diagram is far too large to pertain to the subject at hand. please redraw or use mine:


      --
      But whatever the object, you must keep him praying to it. To the thing he has made, not to the person that has made him.
    2. Re:Lack of diagrams by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      Wow! Slashdot lets us post pics now! Here's a miniature goatse:

        =EO3=

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
  21. Good news for nanosports fans! by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

    A new player for the Edinburgh Engines in the Bucky Basketball League!

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  22. Edinburgh not Edimburgh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sigh...

  23. Nano is the new media prefix buzzword... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Count how many times it's used in the article...

    There are other engineering magnitude prefixes out there (micro, pico, etc,)...some may be more appropriate in certain cases. How about using the appropriate ones before someone files suit on the basis of discrimination?

  24. a sudden epiphany by scooviduvoctagon · · Score: 0

    I wonder if they've considered a beowulf cluster of those things?

  25. Our - Not Out by Kim+Jong+Ill · · Score: 0

    Sorry, worthless spelling Nazi... :)

    --
    I don't want Karma, I just want to be a smart ass. All in favor, mod me up.
  26. You're right, the naming is all wrong by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 2, Funny

    This catches molecules instead of sorting them. It should be called Maxwell's cup.

    1. Re:You're right, the naming is all wrong by sacrilicious · · Score: 1
      This catches molecules instead of sorting them. It should be called Maxwell's cup.

      Perhaps "Maxwell's rubber" might catch on...

      --
      - First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
  27. I for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    welcome our new light-powered molecule-sorting overlords.

  28. How it works by baby_robots · · Score: 2, Informative

    I am currently working towards a PhD in this subject. I think that the first thing to realize is that he has not yet made a motor. He has molecular ratchet as proof of concept towards a molecular motor.
              In layman's terms this is how the ratchet works. First, the molecule is essentially a dumbbell with a ring around it. The ring can move freely back and forth across the dumbbell, but prefers to be at either end. The dumbbell can be bent only near one end, which prevents the ring from moving. The ring catalyzes the transition from bent to strait, to allow motion. The thing is, is that the ring needs to be next to the bend for a significant amount of time to unbend the dumbbell.
                So, when the ring is next to the bend, it can straiten it temporally to move across. When it is far away, it can no longer move across the bend, and since the second binding site is far away from the bend, it is stuck there. If you have two dumbbells looped end-to-end with one ring, then you would have a molecular motor. The ring is acting as "Maxwell's Daemon" to allow movement across the system.

    Here's a link to the actual journal article if you care to read: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7127/pd f/nature05452.pdf

  29. What? No one else thought of Velvet Goldmine? by vistic · · Score: 1

    Got tired of wasting gas living above the planet
    Mister, show me the way to earth
    The boys of Quadrant 44 with their vicious metal hounds
    Never come around here no more
    Sometimes I wonder if I'm still alive
    Six feet down at age 25
    Maxwell Leather Demon rock hand jive

    I came down like water
    For the age of solar
    Hail to the father
    Kiss your sons and daughters
    Goodbye goodbye
    Steam steady roller
    Lady tongue controller
    Ten feet tall, better walk it back down

    Despite the great duress, always get off 'cause damn it!
    It's the only sure-fire way to win
    Your poison doesn't hurt me, no
    Tender wine disguised in a milk-fat fair kiddie show
    I'm here to celebrate the one below
    At last I've heard from good God above
    As the slap on my ass by a lipstick-kissed elbow glove

    I came down like water
    For the age of solar
    Hail to the father
    Kiss your sons and daughters
    Goodbye goodbye
    Steam steady roller
    Lady tongue controller
    Ten feet tall, better walk it back down
    I came down like water
    For the age of solar
    I came down like water
    Kiss your sons and daughters

    Ten feet tall, better walk it back down

  30. Maxwell's Demon? by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1

    I'm certain that captain baseball bat boy will kick his ass.

    1. Re:Maxwell's Demon? by krusher_00 · · Score: 1

      From Wikipedia:
      Maxwell's Demon is an enemy of Captain Baseball bat-boy in the animated series featured in the game Max Payne, at first seeming to be a coincidence in names until a character is quizzed on his knowledge of the game to save his life. The question being "Who was the original creator of Maxwell's Demon?" The character cited both the Captain Baseball bat-boy character who created the demon, as well as the show's writer, but was killed for not answering "James Clerk Maxwell".

      And here I came, expecting to see a TV series. :-(

  31. Cowboy Neal's Demon by PIPBoy3000 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I think we're seeing Cowboy Neal's Demon, a software utility that moves links about on a page to create infinite money for the developer.

    Of course, such a thing can never happen in real life, so it's all theoretical.

  32. What I'm wondering (off topic) by Robber+Baron · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    What I'm wondering, is how many of those girls in that dating site that was featured in one of the ads that this story linked to are going to wind up getting asked for dates now, due to the inundation of desperate, geeky basement-dwellers?

    --

    You're using her as bait, Master!

  33. Obligatory Simpson's quote by avitzur · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Lisa! In this house we obey the law of thermodymanics" - Homer Simpson.

    1. Re:Obligatory Simpson's quote by Sputum · · Score: 1

      "This perpetual motion machine she made is a joke! It just keeps going faster and faster!"

      --
      "What we imagine is order is merely the prevailing form of chaos"
  34. Demon? who cares.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm waiting for his silver hammer.

  35. Not the First Time by MarkLewis · · Score: 1

    An implementation of Maxwell's Demon already exists, called the Hilsch Vortex Tube: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vortex_tube

    It takes gases (such as air) and separates them into hot streams and cold streams, and is already in commercial use. It requires pressure to operate, and dissipates enough energy in the process that it's certainly not free energy. It's less energy efficient than a conventional air conditioner.

  36. Ob. Matrix... by cojsl · · Score: 1

    "The device is powered by light..." QUICK, burn the sky!

  37. Article by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Yeah, the title of this article is horribly misleading. This device is exactly the opposite of Maxwell's Demon -- it consumes energy and increases entropy. Maxwell's demon reduces entropy and can generate energy.


    Obviously, the article irresistably leads to a discussion of Maxwell's Demon, and how this machine highlights the thermodynamic principles that were uncovered during the examination of that wonderfully subtle and insightful thought experiment. But it definitely doesn't mean that Maxwell's Demon may be a reality than machines that exploit relativistic effects suggest that we'll be able to ride around on beams of light, as in Einstein's thought experiment. Or that we'll be able to create superpositions of alive cats and dead cats (the hot new Valentine's gift for 2007 -- all the furriness and half the upkeep!)

    1. Re:Article by naoursla · · Score: 3, Funny

      My cat didn't come home last week and might be dead right now, you insensitive clod!

    2. Re:Article by Poltras · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think I saw Mr. Shroedinger put it in a box...

    3. Re:Article by fbjon · · Score: 1

      That's the first time I've seen an insightful mod on that joke... so it isn't a joke, then?

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    4. Re:Article by naoursla · · Score: 1

      It is not a joke. My wife and I are really upset about it. Why is everyone laughing at me? My poor cat may or may not be dead.

    5. Re:Article by StarfishOne · · Score: 1

      If you want to know for sure if your cat is still alive, all you have to do is take a good look and hope for the best.

    6. Re:Article by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      sorry, but I looked for and saw the cat, and the integrated complex conjugate of its mortality probability density function collapsed to the definitely long dead, rotten and stinky state.

    7. Re:Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > My cat didn't come home last week and might be dead right now, you insensitive clod!

      It's your own fault for observing that the cat wasn't home!

  38. nothing changes by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    University of Edimburgh student: "Teacher, my homework ate itself, I swear!"

  39. Kitty by Mark_MF-WN · · Score: 3, Funny

    As long as there's still some hope that the cat may be alive, it will exist in a superposition such that the living-cat component has some non-zero weight, which we will call XL.

  40. It is daemon.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You insensitive clod!!!

  41. Walk through by andrewrichardthomson · · Score: 1

    There is a nice walk through of the operation of the device on the Leigh group site at- http://www.catenane.net/ What makes this work noteworthy is that the particle is 'ratcheted' into one position in preference to the other, despite the binding energy at each position being similar. The device is a prototype of an 'information ratchet'. There is no suggestion of breaking any laws of thermodynamics because the operation of the device is driven by an external power source (UV irradiation), which will pay back any entropic cost of 'sorting' all of the devices into one state.

  42. Let's assume a closed system... by srussia · · Score: 1

    Reminds me of the old joke about economists:

    "A physicist, a chemist and an economist are stranded on an island, with nothing to eat. A can of soup washes ashore. The physicist says, "Lets smash the can open with a rock." The chemist says, "Lets build a fire and heat the can first." The economist says, "Lets assume that we have a can-opener..." -Paul Samuelson

    --
    Set your phasers on "funky"!
  43. Boring by glwtta · · Score: 1

    This is merely a Demon of the First Kind - wake me up when they've built a Demon of the Second Kind, that's much more difficult.

    Also, that has got to be the stupidest headline slashdot ever carried. What's next, "Chinese Room built, undergoing testing"?

    --
    sic transit gloria mundi
  44. What's this Edimburgh... by davotoula · · Score: 1

    ... that you are speaking of? (Did you mean Edinburgh?)

  45. The present is awesome by Per+Abrahamsen · · Score: 1

    However, the future has been much better. I believe the future topped around 1900, where it seemed like science could explain everything. Instead we used most of the next century to discovering the limitations of science.

    Of course, the future has been worse as well. When I grew up, it seemed like the most likely future consisted of cockroaches ruling over a radioactive Earth.

    1. Re:The present is awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I grew up, it seemed like the most likely future consisted of cockroaches ruling over a radioactive Earth.

      That explains the inhabitants of the White House.

  46. MAxwell's Demon using lasers and cold atoms by XchristX · · Score: 1

    Mark Raizen of the University of Texas at Austin has already shown a way to achieve Maxwell's Demon using sheet lasers in Cold Atom Systems. You use the Doppler cooling effect to do velocity selection of atoms and selectively slow them down as the sheet laser sweeps across the box.

    http://graduateadvisor.physics.tamu.edu/talk/2006/ 20060216_MarkRaizen.txt

    --
    l'Homme n'est Rien l'Oeuvre Tout: Gustave Flaubert to George Sand
    1. Re:MAxwell's Demon using lasers and cold atoms by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      but that's not really a case of Maxwell's Demon, since energy input is needed. There's any number of ways to get cold seperated from hot, but they all require energy. Maxwell's demon provides free (no cost) energy for perpetual motion by using the heat differential generated by the demon to run a heat engine. Of course, this has been proven impossible so many ways, with classically and quantum dynamically and even via information thermodynamic.

    2. Re:MAxwell's Demon using lasers and cold atoms by XchristX · · Score: 1

      I don't think energy is the issue here so much as entropy. Not much extra work is being done while sweeping the laser, though there may be some energy lost on recoil. The main deal in this case is that we have to take into account the entropy of the photon generated during a doppler-recoil, which manifests itself in the entropy of the CCD-camera where the photon impinges in the setup. That balances the second law out.

      --
      l'Homme n'est Rien l'Oeuvre Tout: Gustave Flaubert to George Sand
  47. Maxwell's Demon is overrated by mapkinase · · Score: 1

    I cannot believe people like Szilard, Brillouin, Bennett (well, I would believe that, because: who the heck is Bennett?, read more names at the Wikipedia entry about this creature) spent so much time on it in XX century.

    This is another artefact of science history that does not belong to science in any way, like epicycles of Ptolemy, aether, calorique (thermogen), stone of philosophers and other crap.

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  48. Doesn't make my day.... by bradbury · · Score: 1

    Its only a few billion years after nature evolved the bacterial flagella or maybe a billion after the mitochondrial F0-F1 ATPase evolved.

    Now when someone builds a 25,374 atom Worm Drive Assembly [1] -- then I'll be impressed.

    1. http://www.nanoengineer-1.com/mambo/index.php?opti on=com_content&task=view&id=60&Itemid=57