Are you seriouis? The goo is the first thing Nature came up with, and it's still everywhere.
Clearly you aren't familiar with the concept of "grey goo". Grey goo, coined by Eric Drexler, is a bunch of nanobots that continually make copies of themselves until they consume all organic material present on earth, thus ending life. Obviously Nature hasn't come up with grey goo yet, or we wouldn't be here.
Incidentally Drexler has publically retracted his statements about the possibility of grey goo.
Cellular function and microorganisms are proof that molecular machinery works.
I agree with you. That's why I mentioned mother nature in the first place. However the molecular machinery present in biological organisms and that envisioned by Kurzweil are completely different. Mother nature doesn't have any machines that can "build anything and everything out of dirt and sunlight".
Smalley is a renowned chemist, yes, but on who's word are you taking him as a "foremost authority on nanoscience"? There are plenty of chemists that do not agree with his conservative view
Smalley discovered fullerenes and predicted the existance of carbon nanotubes. In addition he invented the HiPCO process of bulk manufacturing nanotubes. As a matter of fact my current area of study is in carbon nanotube nanoelectronics and I can tell you that Smalley is highly respected in the nanotube community. These points, combined with his nobel prize, tell me that he is one of the world's foremost authorities on nanoscience. I definately put more stock in his opinion than the opinions of these (conspicuously) unnamed chemists that you mention.
Arguing that individual farmers were worse-off than individual hunters really doesn't make any sense. Why did the farmer population go up? It went up because people had more kids that survived to adulthood. That was because they had more resources to care for those kids. For the most part, individuals must have been better off.
Actually, it can make sense if you change your definition of "better off". Studies of current hunter-gatherer societies (yes, they exist) show that the work to socializing time ratio is much lower in those societies than it is in subsitance farming socities. The reason farming is so prevalent is that you can support a bigger population. However subsistance farmers have much greater instances of malnutrition and tooth-decay due to their starch-based diets, and have a much higher rate of disease, due to their crowded living situations.
So an individual in a HG society works much less, socializes more, has better food, and is generally healthier than the subsistance farmer. On the flipside there is a higher infant mortality rate, and therefor smaller families. Thus, survival wise the farmer is "better off", but in terms of quality of life the HG is "better-off". I think that's what the parent is talking about.
Don't romanicize the subsistance farming lifestyle, just because you know so little about it. Likewise, don't admonish others for romanticizing the hunting and gathering lifestyle, when you yourself know so little about it.
You sound like you've become involved in a cult of personality.......but regardless even if that impressive resume you've laid out is accurate for Kurzweil that doesn't give him any authority in the realm of nanoscience. From your description he sounds like a good computer scientist who is also proficient in robotics. Neither of these have quantum mechanics or physical chemistry as prerequisites.
Richard Smalley, on the other hand, is one of the foremost authorities in nanoscience, and the fact that he and Kurzweil disagree on this subject is damning to Kurzweil's argument, at least on the nanotech side.
As Smalley has said, robotic nanoscale assemblers just ain't possible folks. We will not see nanobots that can make anything out of dirt and sunlight, nor will we see grey goo. If grey goo was possible, Mother Nature the true master of nanotech (see molecular biology) would have already come up with it.
Kurzweil may know what he's talking about when it comes to robotics and AI, but when it comes to the realm of the small he's talking out his ass... which is why the argument for the coming "singularity" is a load of crap.
"Mars has about a 1/4 of Earth's gravity. That makes doing a bunch of sustained low g research extremely easy to do on Mars, while on Earth it is much harder to simulate for years at a time."
By "here" I mean Earth and environs, ie where we now have the capability of going. Zero G and Low G research is just as easily, if not more easily done in Earth orbit and on the Moon as on Mars. Also, I challenge you to find some proposed "low-G" research that can't be done better in zero-G.
"Mars could indeed be very profitable if the right resources are there. But we won't know that until we get there."
We can easily determine what is there using probes. But that's beside the point. There are no resources there that would make up for the cost of going there and bringing it back. Unless it has dilithium crystals...
"Earth's inhabitability will quickly diminish if the population rate doesn't slow down soon."
The population growth rate is slowing. However, I agree with you that overpopulation is a major problem. Therefore, I advance that we spend money on researching solutions/stopgaps rather than spending it on silly trips to Mars that accomplish little besides the noble goal of exploration.
"We'll see Earth hitting theoretical max capacity within our lifetimes."
Oh yeah? What is this "theoretical max capacity"?
"Whether we want to or not, at some point soon we'll need to expand off this rock."
.
Soon? So instead of trying to solve the problems we have, we should just abandon the planet? Where are we going to go after we ruin Mars? (Not that it can be ruined).
That is unless you don't mind draconian laws regarding reproduction.
I dont' understand your plan here. How does us going to Mars help overpopulation? Are we going to send everybody's third child to Mars? All the poor people?
Save a nuclear war or other catastrophe, we're going to have to institute population control on Earth eventually whether we go to Mars or not.
Before we get to Mars, we need to stop and ask why we want to go. As far as I can see, our reason is pure conceit. We want to say that people have reached Mars. What does reaching Mars accomplish? Mars is an inhospitable desert. We can't do much research there that wouldn't be better done here, except for investigating Mars itself. Aside from research, why go? It's not profitable, and earth is still inhabitable enough so that establishing colonies on Mars isn't necessary.
All the money spent on making Mars spaceships and reasearching how to protect the astronauts, etc, would be better spent on improving our earthships (cars) and figuring out ways to make civilization much more energy efficient. This HAS to get done in the near future with Peak Oil and the end of cheap energy approaching. Unfortunately, we definately don't have enough money to do both types of research. With the current trends, we could be even a lot worse off by 2030.
As for lightning itself, most types of CNTs would be the "path of most resistance", barring heavy condensation on the cable.
Actually, 1/3 of carbon nanotubes are metallic, which means they are extremely conductive. Even the tubes with a bandgap would most likely have a smaller resistance than plain air. It would make a good path for lightning.
However, my initial thought is that lightning would not be a problem because the grounding that the tubes would provide would prevent charge buildup that leads to lighting in the clouds to begin with.
The video game industry has grown enough so that there's room for three players in the console wars now, if not more. I'm too lazy to look up sales, but I imagine the gamecube has sold more than the original NES.
With brand recognition like Nintendo's, it will never be "out of the loop". As long as it continues to make money on its consoles, there is no reason for it to become a software only company.
Ah yes, that makes some sense. Basically you have an SET where the tunneling probability into the island changes on the island's occupancy. If a spin up electron is present, then a spin up electron will have a harder time tunneling than a spin down. At least that's what springs to my mind. Thanks for the clarification.
Memory now doesn't use positive and negative charge, it already uses magnetic fields. So it will still be binary, spin up and spin down.
Re:really a superconductor?
on
Quantum Wires
·
· Score: 1
Actually, superconductivity has been observed in carbon nanotubes (see Tang et al., Science 292, 2462 (2001) .
You're right, in BCS superconductors electrons must interact with the lattice in order to form Cooper pairs. However, you're wrong about nanotubes not being crystalline - nanotubes are perfect two dimensional lattices rolled onto themselves (rolled up graphene sheets). For nanotube superconductivity, you don't need a crystalline lattice of nanotubes, you just need one nanotube.
Finally, addressing the article, these nanotube ropes that the article talks about will never be superconducting. Nanotube bundles have very poor conductance between nanotubes - the electrons must tunnel from tube to tube.
Actually Physicists, Chemists, and Engineers
on
Quantum Wires
·
· Score: 1
I work in a physics lab, and we synthesize nanotubes.
A lot of new work on nanotube synthesis is done by chemists (also physicists and electrical engineers). However, studying the properties of nanotubes and making devices out of them is primarily done by physicists.
That said, work on nanotubes and other kinds of molecular nanotechnology really is interdisciplinary between physics, chemistry, and electrical/materials engineering. My particular degree program is a fusion of these, and there similar programs springing up around the country.
Re:Investment in superconducting vs. alt. fuel...
on
Quantum Wires
·
· Score: 1
Check out Hubbert Peak Theory for an explanation of why research into alternative energy sources is much more important. Most experts in the field believe "peak oil" will happen sometime in the next 15 years or so. When that happens, oil prices will skyrocket. Transportation will be the most effected by this, especially in the US, where about 17% of the world's oil consumption goes to our transport. The suberbs and SUVs are going to be the death of America.
In contrast, the world is not even close to "peak coal", coal being the main source of electricity in the world.
Investing in alternative energy sources is far more important in terms of solving immenent world crises than research in room temp superconductors.
What a waste of money. Right now, nano electromechanical systems are probably only created by one group (the nanotube group at Berkeley, I don't feel like slashdotting them). They painstakingly create them in specialized laboratory environments. Each NEMS takes years to design and create. It is incredibly optimistic, irresponsible, and stupid to base a mission plan on technology like this being useful and economic enough to be used on a largescale mission like this.
We don't know how nanotubes grow, and we certainly can't grow them in an arbitrary direction in space. These carbon nanotube TeTs are a pipe dream.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you seriouis? The goo is the first thing Nature came up with, and it's still everywhere.
Clearly you aren't familiar with the concept of "grey goo". Grey goo, coined by Eric Drexler, is a bunch of nanobots that continually make copies of themselves until they consume all organic material present on earth, thus ending life. Obviously Nature hasn't come up with grey goo yet, or we wouldn't be here.
Incidentally Drexler has publically retracted his statements about the possibility of grey goo.
Cellular function and microorganisms are proof that molecular machinery works.
I agree with you. That's why I mentioned mother nature in the first place. However the molecular machinery present in biological organisms and that envisioned by Kurzweil are completely different. Mother nature doesn't have any machines that can "build anything and everything out of dirt and sunlight".
Smalley is a renowned chemist, yes, but on who's word are you taking him as a "foremost authority on nanoscience"? There are plenty of chemists that do not agree with his conservative view
Smalley discovered fullerenes and predicted the existance of carbon nanotubes. In addition he invented the HiPCO process of bulk manufacturing nanotubes. As a matter of fact my current area of study is in carbon nanotube nanoelectronics and I can tell you that Smalley is highly respected in the nanotube community. These points, combined with his nobel prize, tell me that he is one of the world's foremost authorities on nanoscience. I definately put more stock in his opinion than the opinions of these (conspicuously) unnamed chemists that you mention.
Arguing that individual farmers were worse-off than individual hunters really doesn't make any sense.
Why did the farmer population go up? It went up because people had more kids that survived to adulthood.
That was because they had more resources to care for those kids. For the most part, individuals must have been better off.
Actually, it can make sense if you change your definition of "better off". Studies of current hunter-gatherer societies (yes, they exist) show that the work to socializing time ratio is much lower in those societies than it is in subsitance farming socities. The reason farming is so prevalent is that you can support a bigger population. However subsistance farmers have much greater instances of malnutrition and tooth-decay due to their starch-based diets, and have a much higher rate of disease, due to their crowded living situations.
So an individual in a HG society works much less, socializes more, has better food, and is generally healthier than the subsistance farmer. On the flipside there is a higher infant mortality rate, and therefor smaller families. Thus, survival wise the farmer is "better off", but in terms of quality of life the HG is "better-off". I think that's what the parent is talking about.
Don't romanicize the subsistance farming lifestyle, just because you know so little about it. Likewise, don't admonish others for romanticizing the hunting and gathering lifestyle, when you yourself know so little about it.
You sound like you've become involved in a cult of personality.... ...but regardless even if that impressive resume you've laid out is accurate for Kurzweil that doesn't give him any authority in the realm of nanoscience. From your description he sounds like a good computer scientist who is also proficient in robotics. Neither of these have quantum mechanics or physical chemistry as prerequisites.
Richard Smalley, on the other hand, is one of the foremost authorities in nanoscience, and the fact that he and Kurzweil disagree on this subject is damning to Kurzweil's argument, at least on the nanotech side.
As Smalley has said, robotic nanoscale assemblers just ain't possible folks. We will not see nanobots that can make anything out of dirt and sunlight, nor will we see grey goo. If grey goo was possible, Mother Nature the true master of nanotech (see molecular biology) would have already come up with it.
Kurzweil may know what he's talking about when it comes to robotics and AI, but when it comes to the realm of the small he's talking out his ass... which is why the argument for the coming "singularity" is a load of crap.
By "here" I mean Earth and environs, ie where we now have the capability of going. Zero G and Low G research is just as easily, if not more easily done in Earth orbit and on the Moon as on Mars. Also, I challenge you to find some proposed "low-G" research that can't be done better in zero-G.
We can easily determine what is there using probes. But that's beside the point. There are no resources there that would make up for the cost of going there and bringing it back. Unless it has dilithium crystals...
The population growth rate is slowing. However, I agree with you that overpopulation is a major problem. Therefore, I advance that we spend money on researching solutions/stopgaps rather than spending it on silly trips to Mars that accomplish little besides the noble goal of exploration.
Oh yeah? What is this "theoretical max capacity"?
.
Soon? So instead of trying to solve the problems we have, we should just abandon the planet? Where are we going to go after we ruin Mars? (Not that it can be ruined).
I dont' understand your plan here. How does us going to Mars help overpopulation? Are we going to send everybody's third child to Mars? All the poor people?
Save a nuclear war or other catastrophe, we're going to have to institute population control on Earth eventually whether we go to Mars or not.
Before we get to Mars, we need to stop and ask why we want to go. As far as I can see, our reason is pure conceit. We want to say that people have reached Mars. What does reaching Mars accomplish? Mars is an inhospitable desert. We can't do much research there that wouldn't be better done here, except for investigating Mars itself. Aside from research, why go? It's not profitable, and earth is still inhabitable enough so that establishing colonies on Mars isn't necessary.
All the money spent on making Mars spaceships and reasearching how to protect the astronauts, etc, would be better spent on improving our earthships (cars) and figuring out ways to make civilization much more energy efficient. This HAS to get done in the near future with Peak Oil and the end of cheap energy approaching. Unfortunately, we definately don't have enough money to do both types of research. With the current trends, we could be even a lot worse off by 2030.
That's true now, but it's not going to last forever.
The more we conserve now, the longer that will last.
If you were to read the article, you would also see that CU Boulder was one of the first to obtain a Fermionic condensate.
The reason this is new is that this is a superfluid state, which hadn't been observed in a Fermionic gas.
Actually, 1/3 of carbon nanotubes are metallic, which means they are extremely conductive. Even the tubes with a bandgap would most likely have a smaller resistance than plain air. It would make a good path for lightning.
However, my initial thought is that lightning would not be a problem because the grounding that the tubes would provide would prevent charge buildup that leads to lighting in the clouds to begin with.
The video game industry has grown enough so that there's room for three players in the console wars now, if not more. I'm too lazy to look up sales, but I imagine the gamecube has sold more than the original NES.
With brand recognition like Nintendo's, it will never be "out of the loop". As long as it continues to make money on its consoles, there is no reason for it to become a software only company.
Ah yes, that makes some sense. Basically you have an SET where the tunneling probability into the island changes on the island's occupancy. If a spin up electron is present, then a spin up electron will have a harder time tunneling than a spin down. At least that's what springs to my mind. Thanks for the clarification.
Memory now doesn't use positive and negative charge, it already uses magnetic fields. So it will still be binary, spin up and spin down.
Actually, superconductivity has been observed in carbon nanotubes (see Tang et al., Science 292, 2462 (2001) .
You're right, in BCS superconductors electrons must interact with the lattice in order to form Cooper pairs. However, you're wrong about nanotubes not being crystalline - nanotubes are perfect two dimensional lattices rolled onto themselves (rolled up graphene sheets). For nanotube superconductivity, you don't need a crystalline lattice of nanotubes, you just need one nanotube.
Finally, addressing the article, these nanotube ropes that the article talks about will never be superconducting. Nanotube bundles have very poor conductance between nanotubes - the electrons must tunnel from tube to tube.
I work in a physics lab, and we synthesize nanotubes.
A lot of new work on nanotube synthesis is done by chemists (also physicists and electrical engineers). However, studying the properties of nanotubes and making devices out of them is primarily done by physicists.
That said, work on nanotubes and other kinds of molecular nanotechnology really is interdisciplinary between physics, chemistry, and electrical/materials engineering. My particular degree program is a fusion of these, and there similar programs springing up around the country.
Check out Hubbert Peak Theory for an explanation of why research into alternative energy sources is much more important. Most experts in the field believe "peak oil" will happen sometime in the next 15 years or so. When that happens, oil prices will skyrocket. Transportation will be the most effected by this, especially in the US, where about 17% of the world's oil consumption goes to our transport. The suberbs and SUVs are going to be the death of America. In contrast, the world is not even close to "peak coal", coal being the main source of electricity in the world. Investing in alternative energy sources is far more important in terms of solving immenent world crises than research in room temp superconductors.
What a waste of money. Right now, nano electromechanical systems are probably only created by one group (the nanotube group at Berkeley, I don't feel like slashdotting them). They painstakingly create them in specialized laboratory environments. Each NEMS takes years to design and create. It is incredibly optimistic, irresponsible, and stupid to base a mission plan on technology like this being useful and economic enough to be used on a largescale mission like this. We don't know how nanotubes grow, and we certainly can't grow them in an arbitrary direction in space. These carbon nanotube TeTs are a pipe dream.