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."
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.
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.
A computer is a billion switches. Even if we turned it into a googolplex switches, it's still nothing more than a googolplex switches.
Our brains are nothing but billions upon billions of neurons, synapses, etc. forming complex interconnections.. yes, any first generation intelligent AI would have to be created by humans, but if we exactly modelled a human brain in software and trained it like any other child (it would probably need the aid of a prosthetic or virtual body to be able to learn), what would really make the resulting AI different from ourselves if it reacted as we do? I know it's a big if, and that there probably isn't much point in creating an AI that has human flaws - but there is nothing in life to indicate that we are anything other than purely physical constructs. Otherwise, why bother with having bodies in the first place - unless perhaps our bodies are as to the soul as cars and aeroplanes are to humans?
which is totally what she said
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
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.