Slashdot Mirror
Real Nanotechnology Getting Closer, Says Drexler
destinyland writes "Sun Microsystems has helped fund a 198-page nanotechnology roadmap — but how
close are we to real nanotechnology? A science writer asked four nano pioneers, including
K. Eric Dexler ('progress is accelerating') and Ralph Merkle ('the exponential trends continue to be exponential') Though we don't have Star Trek replicators yet, the article lists some surprising recent nano developments (artificial tissue, nanoparticle sheets, ultrathin diamond nanorods).
And the roadmap's scientists are envisioning targeted cancer therapies, super-efficient solar cells, high-density computer memory chips and even responsive 'smart' materials."
Ahh... Nanotechnology.
The next big thing.
------
beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his mind he dreams himself your master
Just around the corner! No, really!
And while I'm at it: many things that are now called 'nanotechnology' were formerly called chemistry or submicrometer fabrication. 'Nano' has become way overhyped and a way to get more money for research proposals.
-- Cheers!
(... And circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works.)
We've seen this with so many things, including solar cells - Constant assurance that they are getting cheaper easier to make, more efficient, etc; people ranting about how it is finally feasible and will be seen in mass quantities soon... yet we still don't.
IMHO, it's vaporware until the common Joe is purchasing and holding it in their hands.
That _DOESNT_ mean I don't acknowledge the advances, just that I don't get my hopes up.
Evolution - Est. 4500000000 B.C. Don't piss in the gene pool.
This is a cross section of the pmos transistors in one of Intels 45nm high-k metal gate CPUs. As you can see there are many layers with a horizontal and lateral extend far below 10 nm. In fact the thinnest layers are in the order of 1-2nm - The gate stack itself consists of a multilayer stack of SiO2/HfO2/TiN, where each of the layers is only 1-3 nm thick.
How is this not nanotechnology?
Most of the known bottom up approaches that are hyped and studied at universities, such as nanoparticles and nanowires, lead to significantly larger structures.
Top down beat bottom up years ago. Sorry guys, it's a nice phd topic but the industry is already there.
that, unlike all other fields of technological innovation, when one speaks of vaporware, one might actually be talking about some sort of useful hardware that literally is a vapor
so nanotechnology has at least that going for it
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Nanotechnology is like cybernetics: Any application that no longer feels exotic no longer falls under the common use of the term. This is why people with cardiac pacemakers or cochlear implants are generally not considered to be cyborgs, and microchips are not considered to be nanotech.
Just around the corner! No, really!
I think the problem with nanotechnology is that people make the assumption that it has to be a miniature self aware all purpose robot.
Where really we already have nanotechnology being used in the real world today.
I think we should call it "nanorobotics" instead of nanotechnology to make it more clear to people.
That said, they do have nanobots out there in the research phase which are very promising for chemical delivery for tumors at this point so we are going to see something in 5 to 10 years.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Wait, are you telling me Wesley Crusher ruined two TV series?
'Sensible' is a curse word.
We've seen this with so many things, including solar cells - Constant assurance that they are getting cheaper easier to make, more efficient, etc; people ranting about how it is finally feasible and will be seen in mass quantities soon... yet we still don't.
Maybe you should take a look at these graphs: http://www.frozennorth.org/C197109377/E20080427143258/index.html and http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/2008/12/387-world-photovoltaic-pv-production.html
"the exponential trends continue to be exponential"
They didn't say that the exponent was necessarily > 1.
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
Science is always changing, always evolving, because we are always learning (some of us anyway). If you expect science to be exactly the same in 10 years, you have a fundamental misconception of how science works. In fact, science not only does change, it must, otherwise it becomes more dogmatic garbage the world has too much of anyway. Don't mistake your lack of comprehension for the fallibility of science.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
Well, you're clearly drawing parallels with claims with AI. I think the difference between Molecular Nanotechnology and Artificial Intelligence is that 40 years ago, people didn't really have an understanding of artificial intelligence or how to achieve it. Or perhaps it's more fair to say that what people really meant by artificial intelligence is artificial consciousness and that the underlying mechanism for consciousness is still not understood. However I think it's getting clearer that it's an emergent property of certain types of extremely complex neural networks. If the electrical/nanotechnological engineers can keep Moore's law going, then we should be able to simulate that level of complexity in another 30-40 years, which would mean that artificial consciousness should be technically feasible by that time, even if it's likely to take some more time to actually achieve it. That's something that was far from true 40 years ago. In addition, fMRI's are now helping us get significant macro-structural insights into the functioning of the human brain. so that we can work both top down and bottom-up to a solution.
Now the thing about molecular nanotechnology is that, unlike with artificial consciousness 40 years ago, we do actually have some idea of the types of mechanisms that we want to achieve. While we do need to develop a lot of tools, and there are some questions about the feasibility of certain activities, there appears to be far fewer major unknowns in the roadmap than there were in AI/AC 40 years ago.
The goals they're putting out for nanotechnology are generally real and reasonable (more efficient energy conversion, more targeted drug delivery, better chemical sensors, integration of biological and electronic systems). What is unreasonable is that they're essentially getting credit in the media (and in form of investments) for work which they have not done.
None of these guys has worked in a nanotechnology lab. None of these guys has tried to build something starting from atoms. I'm doing both. I work at an Ivy League University in a leading lab for some of the technologies prominently mentioned in that article, but I barely have funding just for this summer. The guy who invented the DNA origami work they're so excited about was recently fired by his University (did not get tenure). A little more support, both in the media and by the companies funding the Forsight Institute, would be really, really welcomed by those of us actually doing the work.
The MIT Media lab is great, but they're not known in the field for being experts on nanotechnology. Not mentioned is the world's best collection of nanotechnology researchers, which happens to also be at MIT, in the physics and engineering departments. If you're at MIT and you want to have a future in nanotechnology, forget the Media Lab, and find one of the professors working with Gene and Mildred Dresselhaus.