Real Nanotechnology

[Ray McCarthy]

See some real Nanotech.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/18/belling_that_cat_oz_boffins_pass_entanglement_test/

Real nanotech is making small structures, often using laser tweezers or Tunnelling Electron Microscopes or other fabrication techniques.

Metamaterials are often nano-scale composites (fibre glass and epoxy resin is a macro-scale composite).

It doesn't involve hordes of little machines building conventional materials or machines, that's Science Fantasy or Star Trek Magic Technobabble.

Current RAM, Flash Memory, CPUs, Phone chips etc are nanotechnology and have been for ages.

I mentioned this here:

Not as envisaged by ANY SF I've read. They use it instead of invoking magic, as a plot device. Nothing much to do with real nanotech (Ken Macleod and Iain M. Banks). Real Nanotech exists.
Nanomachines are by nature very limited due to size. If there is a diamond age, it will be by some other technology.

I just read The Diamond Age. Bits seemed familiar* (People getting implants to be ractor / performers). Overall I thought it was somewhat enjoyable and a good story somewhat marred by some plot holes and over-reliance on nanotech magic.

https://www.sffchronicles.com/threads/29926/#post-1974107

 

[J Riff]

It's showing up everywhere, it was in Spectre last night. Lots of buzzwords here for writers, you want to be sure to have at least a vague grasp of the reality of this stuff before using it in a story. "Quantum computing' 'entanglement' 'single-atom transistor' 'qubits'. My brain hurts. *

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Lots of buzzwords here for writers

Unfortunately many are using it instead of Technobabble. Though actually Technobabble is just laziness.
A lot of SF is Science Fantasy, based on the author reading a "pop science" media account* of something either sexed up by marketing, or to get a grant or by Journalist total inability to report it coherently.

[* Or I suppose watching Star Trek or reading some other SF book. Research your terms. Wikipedia is frequently inaccurate, but is good at revealing what the term is likely to really mean and list of other references. Some things need University level maths and Science to understand. I did Electronics and worked in fab lab, which gives a good dose of Materials science, Chemistry, Physics and Quantum Mechanics. School Physics is the worst science / tech subject for having lies for children.]

 

[SilentRoamer]

Unfortunately many are using it instead of Technobabble. Though actually Technobabble is just laziness.
A lot of SF is Science Fantasy,

I don't think this is always a bad thing. Dune for me is a great example of Space Fantasy. Herbert was an expert in technobabble which sounded all levels of awesome.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Dune for me is a great example of Space Fantasy. Herbert was an expert in technobabble which sounded all levels of awesome.

There was a small amount in Dune. Unlike Star Trek, he didn't make up fresh stuff for every episode (chapter) simply to fill plot holes, mostly it was just texture of background. Also it is Space Fantasy, not really science Fiction and not at all hard SF.

Also unlike Star Trek and modern SF authors he neither made mistake of trying to explain it (Hello George "Star Wars" Lucas?!) or trying to claim it was REALLY a development of today's science.

 

[SilentRoamer]

Yeah I can appreciate that.

Dune did feel really authentic and was fairly consistent.

 

[Mirannan]

Nanotech is whatever we decide it is. For what it's worth, my opinion is that use of nanoscale materials (nanoscale TiO2 particles in sunscreen, for example) doesn't qualify. Also IMHO, the fact that computer chips have nanoscale structures in them doesn't qualify either - because the machines that make them are the size of a building.

What everyone seems to agree on is that machinery that actually works at the nanoscale (with nanoscale moving parts) does qualify. And it must be, and is, possible because you can see an existence proof by looking in the mirror.

Which brings me to my final point. Nanotech could have macroscale consequences by the rather simple expedient of a hierarchy of scales.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Nano scale simply means in the realms of 1 to hundreds of 1000ths of a micrometer size structure. Nanotech is simply the technology of making these things. That's the accepted Scientific and Industry definitions, not marketing department drones.

Nanotech doesn't include biological entities. So nano scale "machines" only count as nanotech if they are really small machines, not biology.

 

[BAYLOR]

There was a small amount in Dune. Unlike Star Trek, he didn't make up fresh stuff for every episode (chapter) simply to fill plot holes, mostly it was just texture of background. Also it is Space Fantasy, not really science Fiction and not at all hard SF.

Also unlike Star Trek and modern SF authors he neither made mistake of trying to explain it (Hello George "Star Wars" Lucas?!) or trying to claim it was REALLY a development of today's science.

You might find Abraham Merritt's 1928 novel The Metal Monster to be of interest.

 

[Mirannan]

Nano scale simply means in the realms of 1 to hundreds of 1000ths of a micrometer size structure. Nanotech is simply the technology of making these things. That's the accepted Scientific and Industry definitions, not marketing department drones.

Nanotech doesn't include biological entities. So nano scale "machines" only count as nanotech if they are really small machines, not biology.

In your second paragraph, you are quite right. I was merely pointing out that nanoscale machinery must be possible, because nanomachines exist by the trillions in every living organism. Ribosomes look remarkably mechanical in their operation, for example. So does the operation of the proteins that make muscle work. Saying that such things don't count as nanomachinery because they are part of living matter - well, that smacks of vitalism.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

that smacks of vitalism.

Biotech and Gene-tech are real

Co-incidentally ...
http://dilbert.com/strip/2015-11-23
Hmm

 

[Mirannan]

Ray - One could go around arguing about definitions for hours. However: Self-sustaining and replicating systems of nanomachines and nanoassemblers are possible because there are trillions of such systems on Earth already; the fact that (so far) all of them have evolved rather than being deliberately designed is irrelevant to the question of whether such systems are possible.

Sure, biotech and gene technology are real. It's worth mentioning, I think, that gene splicing is rather hit-and-miss at the moment.

Incidentally, it's thought by many that the very first nanomachines are going to have to be made by the sort of processes (involving enormous machines and huge amounts of toxic chemicals and waste) with which we are familiar. However, once a few are made then the need for all that macroscale tech may well go away.

 

[SilentRoamer]

I'm not sure I subscribe to the idea that living organisms = nanotech.

 

[Mirannan]

I'm not sure I subscribe to the idea that living organisms = nanotech.

Agreed. Living organisms aren't technology at all. But the existence of living organisms (which include enormous numbers of nanoassemblers, such as ribosomes and the like, all working together to a purpose) means that nanotech is possible. There are some people who say that networks of nanomachines which work together to a purpose aren't possible; if you're one of them, then look at the mirror for an example of one.

 

[SilentRoamer]

Hey Mirannan,

Isn't this a false equivalence though? Just because living organisms are capable of nanoassembly this does not by necessity extend to non living machines. It assumes an equivalence between living organisms and machines and further it assumes that they exist on an equal playing field. As far as I am aware all human built machinery is an order of magnitude behind the efficiencies we can see is nature (one of the reasons increasingly we are inspired by nature).

Again your assumption rests on the basis that nanomachinery and living organisms are analogous and I am not so sure that they are. I mean look at protein folding as an example - we don't really understand how proteins can actually fold into the required shape based on the mathematics behind the various folds.

Some food for thought.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

means that nanotech is possible

Nanotech has existed for years.
Aspects of Biological assemblies are sometimes mimicked by human designers. Mechanical analogues of biological so called "nanoassemblers" are nothing to do with nanotech except in Ken Macleod style SF. They are part of larger systems anyway, except for bacteria, protozoa and larger viruses like Bacteriophages.

your assumption rests on the basis that nanomachinery and living organisms are analogous

They are only similar in scale. Nothing else. Power for small machines is a severe problem. Any nano "devices" would be biological engineered things, not nano-sized mechanical gadgets. Even so such biological "devices" would need a biological environment or be in a nutrient bath. Vision, concept and wishful thinking doesn't make biological processes be engineered nano-machines.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Even smaller ... How do we know atoms exist? (warning not 100% accurate, electric current isn't quite as described)
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20151120-how-do-we-know-that-things-are-really-made-of-atoms

I've no idea where to buy dry ice
http://io9.com/5950112/how-to-reena...cs-experiment-with-nothing-but-party-supplies

 

[J Riff]

It showed up again last nite in the Kingsman movie - nano-gel that you drink, then it can be tracked for a few days. I swallowed it. * )

 

[Mirannan]

Hey Mirannan,

Isn't this a false equivalence though? Just because living organisms are capable of nanoassembly this does not by necessity extend to non living machines. It assumes an equivalence between living organisms and machines and further it assumes that they exist on an equal playing field. As far as I am aware all human built machinery is an order of magnitude behind the efficiencies we can see is nature (one of the reasons increasingly we are inspired by nature).

Again your assumption rests on the basis that nanomachinery and living organisms are analogous and I am not so sure that they are. I mean look at protein folding as an example - we don't really understand how proteins can actually fold into the required shape based on the mathematics behind the various folds.

Some food for thought.

The part about efficiency isn't actually true; one is the greater efficiency of solar cells as compared to photosynthesis. Various types of heat engine are better at getting work out of fuel than biological systems are, too.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

The efficiency of mechanical and electromechanical systems is very poor at small sizes. It's an inverse square law in many cases.