Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

There is no nanotech, stop talking about it and start laughing at it

scottlocklin.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 117 posts

Re: There is no nanotech, stop talking about it and start laughing at it

#51

Post by Tichy »

jimbokun wrote: post #35
jacquesm wrote: post #14

For those that are skeptical about nano machinery, google 'ribosome' and be amazed. Nano machinery is real, it exists, it powers the world, it's called biology. The problem is that we seem to have a hard time translating our hard won knowledge of mechanical engineering to the nano scale, I expect some time will pass before the SF visions will become a reality but I think eventually we will get there. Figure another 5…

"Figure another 50 to 100 years or so?" 5 to 10 years? 500 to 1000 years? 5000 to 10000 years? 5 to 10 months? What are we basing our estimates on? That is the author's real point. If we don't have a good enough handle on the principles necessary to make this into an engineering problem, there just isn't any sense in trying to guess when these technologies will arrive. Unless you have some facts or data you're keepin…

There is now a technology to print DNA from a computer data file and inject it into a cell. That seems to be a good start for tinkering.

Re: There is no nanotech, stop talking about it and start laughing at it

#52

Post by jacquesm »

imp wrote: post #33
jacquesm wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At your service: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7245/abs/nature08...

And that sounds like what the author of the OP said here: "I’m willing to bet, at some nebulous point in the future, long after Drexler and I are dead, someone may eventually develop a technology sort of vaguely like what he imagines." It's been a while since I read Drexler's books, but if I remember correctly he alluded to more mechanical processes than biological ones. The article you linked to is purely biology an…

No, it's not purely biology. It is using biological elements to synthesize artificial constructs with exact mechanical dimensions.

By analogy, when a carpenter takes a tree and cuts the tree into boards that's engineering, not biology even if the raw materials were provided by biology.

And when you then use those boards to build a house, that's engineering too.

Re: There is no nanotech, stop talking about it and start laughing at it

#53

Post by mortenjorck »

I hate to complain about headlines, but I feel this needs saying:

Headlines such as the one this author has chosen strike me as unpleasantly Digg-like. Exhortations to "stop talking about it and start laughing at it" are anti-intellectual; it's a call to glib derision rather than reasoned rejection.

Re: There is no nanotech, stop talking about it and start laughing at it

#54

Post by Tichy »

bbgm wrote: post #24
jacquesm wrote: post #14

For those that are skeptical about nano machinery, google 'ribosome' and be amazed. Nano machinery is real, it exists, it powers the world, it's called biology. The problem is that we seem to have a hard time translating our hard won knowledge of mechanical engineering to the nano scale, I expect some time will pass before the SF visions will become a reality but I think eventually we will get there. Figure another 5…

I've been accused of being too much of a stickler on this, but while the ribosome and other biological machinery are at the nanoscale, but they are NOT nanotechnology. If you use the Drexlerian definition, nanotech much be engineered, which ribosome is definitely not. We can certainly learn from natural systems, but that doesn't make them nanotech. Also, nanosystems fundamentally are at a scale when quantum propertie…

Still, I would argue the biological machinery would count as proof of concept. Evidently it is possible to create self-replicating nano machines. So it is not ridiculous to think about it, as the article claims.

Re: There is no nanotech, stop talking about it and start laughing at it

#55

Post by spot »

jimbokun wrote: post #42
spot wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

is that the author's real point? i didn't see him say it anywhere.

"It also depends on what your time scale is. I’m willing to bet, at some nebulous point in the future, long after Drexler and I are dead, someone may eventually develop a technology sort of vaguely like what he imagines." This is the point I was paraphrasing.

you are right, i missed the weasel words.

so really, this guy agrees that it's happening, but he disagrees with the timeline. but he didn't actually provide any information or argument about the rate of progress of miniaturization.

Re: There is no nanotech, stop talking about it and start laughing at it

#56

Post by spot »

pedrocr wrote: post #23
Symmetry wrote: post #13

I really wish that the author would have, when complaining about "Drexler's Book", been clear about which one he was talking about. Also, "Mechanical objects on microscales do not exist" is gratuitously false, we even have really simple mechanical objects (like cantilevers) on the 100nm scale now.

"This is an honest summary of Drexler’s Ph.D. thesis/book"

why summarize and criticize a book published in 1986?

Re: There is no nanotech, stop talking about it and start laughing at it

#57

Post by Tichy »

markkat wrote: post #15
AndrewDucker wrote: post #12

So, viruses don't exist then? Because those seem to operate perfectly happily in a nanoscale environment, manipulating things around them.

Yep, and we can make those using bacteria machinery. But, it is actually pretty different when compared to some of the possibilities set out by nanotech folk. Viruses passively work in a system where their structure is intrinsic to the system. Most nano-techs can be better explained as catalysts, surfactants, anti-bodies, etc. Technologies and phenomenon long studied in existing fields.

I agree that it seems unlikely that we'll achieve nanobots that are more complicated than biological cells. An example of an unrealistic idea would be a remote controlled (or even autonomous) submarine diving through blood vessels, broadcasting what it sees to the outside world in HD quality.

Still, lot's of interesting things should be possible...

Re: There is no nanotech, stop talking about it and start laughing at it

#59

Post by paraschopra »

jacquesm wrote: post #46
jimbokun wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Figure another 50 to 100 years or so?" 5 to 10 years? 500 to 1000 years? 5000 to 10000 years? 5 to 10 months? What are we basing our estimates on? That is the author's real point. If we don't have a good enough handle on the principles necessary to make this into an engineering problem, there just isn't any sense in trying to guess when these technologies will arrive. Unless you have some facts or data you're keepin…

Based on the slow progress of the last 30 year in 'hard nanotech' and the quite amazing strides in the last couple of years in our understanding of and our ability to synthesize 3 dimensional structures at the nano scale (including DNA), and to harness biological components to do different work. The two fields are complementary I think, one is pushing from the top down trying to make our existing structures smaller (…

Synthetic Biology is a deeply fascinating field. Four years ago I wrote a review article titled 'Engineering Life using Synthetic Biology' http://www.bioinfo.de/isb/2006/06/0038/main.html

Synthetic Biology has made good progress in those four years. See, for example, Craig Venture claiming to create first truly synthetic life-form. If you are in the field, you will start noticing that terms are overlapping. So, your idea of synthetic biology may be related to nano-machines while my idea of synthetic biology may be related to genetic engineering.

Re: There is no nanotech, stop talking about it and start laughing at it

#60

Post by jacquesm »

paulsb wrote: post #17
fragmede wrote: post #4

The name is all about the funding. There are many 'nano'-technology grants, which focus on devices that are tens of thousands, or even millions of nanometers large. Micro-techology, however, doesn't get the same funding from the NSF et al. MEMS ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microelectromechanical_systems ) has come a long way in a very short time, and, research-dollars willing, will shrink further, so the author is…

Very true. In the life sciences it was 'biotechnology' in 2000, 'nano-technology' in 2005, and now it is 'synthetic biology'; but they're all the same and have changed names to get the funding.

I think those terms are in part to indicate a progress of understanding as well. It's not all nonsense, it's just that when everybody else uses the next available buzz-word if you don't follow suit you will be left without funding.

The people that write the proposals are going to try to maximize their chances, think of it as marketing.

Nano-technology was terribly oversold so it lost it's glamor, but the concept is real, synthetic biology is real as a concept and only just now beginning to make some headway, eventually, long after it has lost it's glamor too it will be a mainstay of industry.

Just like the humble transistor is no longer glamorous, it's 'just' technology now. But in 1947 it was a miracle.

Buzzwords ideally should lose their power because the tech behind them becomes commonplace, when they're oversold we have a problem (looking at you, AI).

Post reply on HN