Nanotechnology and its future applications

[Jrrarglblarg]

From the Venus of Willendorf to Internet in my pocket, technology advances have improved the quality of porn at every stage. I shudder in anticipation for what nanotechnology will bring.

 

[Brian-M]

Very interesting series but I guess I was unaware of the applications for the use of nanotechnology today so I decided to Google and this is what I found.

http://io9.com/5967198/8-incredible-nanotechnologies-that-actually-exist-in-the-real-world

Strange, that list doesn't include transistors.

CPUs currently use transistors just 22nm across, and the new INTEL Core M processor uses 14nm transistors, that's about 70 atoms wide. There are plans in place to get the transistors in commercial processors down to 5nm by the end of the decade.

For comparison:

750,000nm = Largest bacteria; Thiomargarita namibiensis
1,500nm = Largest virus; Pithovirus sibericum
750nm = Longest wavelength of visible light (red)
440nm = Megavirus
380nm = Smallest wavelength of visible light (violet)
200nm = Smallest bacteria; Mycoplasma genitalium
22nm = Rhinovirus (common cold)
22nm = Transistors in many CPUs
17nm = Smallest virus; Porcine circovirus type 1
15nm = Nano-sized particles in nano-sunscreen
14nm = Transistors in INTEL Core M processor
4nm = Smallest transistor in 2010 (made from 7 phosphorus atoms)
1nm = Diameter of carbon nanotubes

 

[catsmate]

I recently heard about that road idea from the ecology minded hippies around here. I think they left out the "nano" bit and was thinking along the lines of solar panels laid out as a road. It might work if you put a mono rail in the middle of it to letting the solar energy collected supply the rail but I can't see the panels taking the stress of the weight of the vehicles.

When I visisted my alma mater last year there was a sophister/postgrad project working on flexible materials that not only provided a superior road surface but could also generate power. This would handle small scale lighting, adaptive signage and water/ice dispersal.
The long-term idea was to integrate an inductive power system to power/charge electric vehicles as the travelled.

I can't see artificial microbiota eating a planet, but eating the people on it seems straightforward enough, given that evolutionary brakes do not apply to man made microscopic suicide bombers. (They don't need to reproduce or evolve. They might. But they don't need to.)

Or just killing everyone, it wouldn't take much.

Meanwhile, back in non- sentient applications, I'd say waste management and lubrication are areas I'd expect to see some actual advances in soon.

Agreed, in fact lubrication using nano-scale carbon has been tested at lab scales IIRR.

From the Venus of Willendorf to Internet in my pocket, technology advances have improved the quality of porn at every stage. I shudder in anticipation for what nanotechnology will bring.

Shape-shifting sexbots; 'smart fog' that can produce interactive, holodeck-style porn on command. Finally the MRAs will have their dream...
Though, more seriopusly, you are correct about porn and sex being important technology drivers.

 

[Jodie]

Strange, that list doesn't include transistors.

CPUs currently use transistors just 22nm across, and the new INTEL Core M processor uses 14nm transistors, that's about 70 atoms wide. There are plans in place to get the transistors in commercial processors down to 5nm by the end of the decade.

For comparison:

750,000nm = Largest bacteria; Thiomargarita namibiensis
1,500nm = Largest virus; Pithovirus sibericum
750nm = Longest wavelength of visible light (red)
440nm = Megavirus
380nm = Smallest wavelength of visible light (violet)
200nm = Smallest bacteria; Mycoplasma genitalium
22nm = Rhinovirus (common cold)
22nm = Transistors in many CPUs
17nm = Smallest virus; Porcine circovirus type 1
15nm = Nano-sized particles in nano-sunscreen
14nm = Transistors in INTEL Core M processor
4nm = Smallest transistor in 2010 (made from 7 phosphorus atoms)
1nm = Diameter of carbon nanotubes

I had no idea such as this existed.

 

[Ziggurat]

CPUs currently use transistors just 22nm across, and the new INTEL Core M processor uses 14nm transistors, that's about 70 atoms wide. There are plans in place to get the transistors in commercial processors down to 5nm by the end of the decade.

That's not quite right. On a 14 nm process, there are certain individual features (or parts) with 14 nm dimensions. But a transistor is made from multiple parts, which means that the transistor as a whole is larger than 14 nm.

 

[Wolrab]

It is truly astonishing we can make practical machines at those scales.


All seriousness aside, several years ago I saw a documentary on nanotechnology being used in the demolition industry. In fact a large scale demonstration occurred on 11 September, 2001. It was broadcast world wide. They must have found a downside because it hasn't been used since.

 

[Jodie]

I'm sure you meant it as a joke, but I'll bite. How does 911 have anything to do with nanotechnology?

 

[geni]

I'm sure you meant it as a joke, but I'll bite. How does 911 have anything to do with nanotechnology?

Run a search on the forum for Nanothermite

 

[geni]

Meanwhile, back in non- sentient applications, I'd say waste management and lubrication are areas I'd expect to see some actual advances in soon.

As a chemist I'd say no with regards to waste management. We will see some advances yes but non industrial waste streams are too mixed for such an approach to work well.

 

[marplots]

As a chemist I'd say no with regards to waste management. We will see some advances yes but non industrial waste streams are too mixed for such an approach to work well.

That reminds me. We've had nanotechnology for many years. We called it "chemistry."

 

[catsmate]

I'm sure you meant it as a joke, but I'll bite. How does 911 have anything to do with nanotechnology?

A tiny fringe of lunatic conspiracy peddlers claim the towers were demolished by explosives; a fringe of that fringe claim it was done using finely powdered thermite, aka nanothermite.
It's utter rubbish of course.

That reminds me. We've had nanotechnology for many years. We called it "chemistry."

Animals and plants have been doing it longer.

 

[Soapy Sam]

That reminds me. We've had nanotechnology for many years. We called it "chemistry."

I was thinking along lines of using nanotech to deliver catalyst molecules to specific sites and then move the products. (Essentially building analogs of intelligent bacteria) to accelerate breakdown of oily waste to something real bacteria can handle.
The potential for a "symbiosis" between living bacteria and non living but similarly scaled machines seems credible. Enhanced oil and gas recovery is another area of potential interest. Anywhere "stuff" (preferably fkuids) are distributed over large volumes through small pore spaces.

 

[Dinwar]

From the Venus of Willendorf to Internet in my pocket, technology advances have improved the quality of porn at every stage. I shudder in anticipation for what nanotechnology will bring.

More true than many would feel comfortable accepting. Porn and alcohol have contributed to major advances in our technology. Some archaeologists have even argued that beer is responsible for civilization itself, and without porn the internet wouldn't be NEARLY what it is.

As for gray goo, it'll run into the same problem any other attempt at global-scale monoculture does: microhabitats. Basically, there is no way to ensure that the habitats every nanomachine encounters are going to allow for that machine to survive. In fact, such an outcome is inevitable. We can attempt to mitigate that, but doing so will necessarily result in diversification. In the end, while it may be possible to wipe out all macroscopic life (though I strongly doubt such a posibility), a gray goo would simply be impossible. Either the machines are all identical, in which case they will inevitably fail to endure some condition they encounter, or they are capable of diversification, in which case we'd end up where the planet was 3 billion years ago or so.

Also, if the things become sentient, the solution is easy: go somewhere humans aren't. Organics would be good at certain things, inorganics at other things. For example: Humans survive remarkably well in a highly corrosive atmosphere. Robots--particularly iron-based ones--not so much. In contrast, we fleshy folks tend to not do so well when you take away our corrosive gasses, or put us under pressure. Robots do best in airless environments (or at least those lacking oxygen), and can be built to function underr extreme pressures. The idea of a sentient robot of any kind wiping out humanity is utter nonsense; any rational entity would realize that it's far superior to collonize somewhere we can't, and trade with us.

I was thinking along lines of using nanotech to deliver catalyst molecules to specific sites and then move the products.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribosome

')

As a chemist I'd say no with regards to waste management.

Remediation may be an option. We can tailor the nanobots to the specific constituents of concern, while ensuring that the final product is either non-toxic or not bioavailable.

 

[barehl]

The grey goo scenario is entirely fictitious. No one has explained: what power source could be used, how they could move, how communication would be possible, or how a control program would be possible. These are not small gaps; this is pretty much everything that would be needed for something like Michael Crichton's Prey which is about an intelligent fog that can infect people and eat them from the inside, replacing their cells with nanites. Unfortunately, nanites are not even theoretically possible.

Restorative DNA therapy has been talked about a lot. It too has problems that I'm not sure can be overcome. The first problem is that viral DNA is self-contained; it only replicates itself so it works just fine. However, when you want to add DNA to a living cell, where do you put it? If you go all the way into the nucleus then where does it go in the vast lengths of DNA already there? If you could replace an entire chromosome, that might work but that's too big to fit inside the protein coat of a virus. That probably means that additive DNA would have to be limited to structures outside of the nucleus. I'm not aware of any existing organelle that would work for this. Remember, that recombinant DNA works for bacteria because they have plasmids but animal cells don't have this. It's not impossible but a workable solution is not apparent yet.

 

[barehl]

As for gray goo, it'll run into the same problem any other attempt at global-scale monoculture does: microhabitats. Basically, there is no way to ensure that the habitats every nanomachine encounters are going to allow for that machine to survive. In fact, such an outcome is inevitable. We can attempt to mitigate that, but doing so will necessarily result in diversification. In the end, while it may be possible to wipe out all macroscopic life (though I strongly doubt such a posibility), a gray goo would simply be impossible. Either the machines are all identical, in which case they will inevitably fail to endure some condition they encounter, or they are capable of diversification, in which case we'd end up where the planet was 3 billion years ago or so.

I would say that this is putting the cart before the horse except that would be giving it too much credit. Putting a leaf before a horseshoe might be closer.

Also, if the things become sentient, the solution is easy: go somewhere humans aren't. Organics would be good at certain things, inorganics at other things. For example: Humans survive remarkably well in a highly corrosive atmosphere. Robots--particularly iron-based ones--not so much. In contrast, we fleshy folks tend to not do so well when you take away our corrosive gasses, or put us under pressure. Robots do best in airless environments (or at least those lacking oxygen), and can be built to function underr extreme pressures. The idea of a sentient robot of any kind wiping out humanity is utter nonsense; any rational entity would realize that it's far superior to collonize somewhere we can't, and trade with us.

I've been working on a theory of human consciousness so I would have to say that computers with human consciousness are possible. And, this could be put into a robot. However, I have no idea what this would have to do with nanotechnology. You cannot build sentient nanites.

 

[Brian-M]

You cannot build sentient nanites.

I might be wrong, but I suspect that you can't even build nanites capable of general computation. How many working logic gates can you fit into a machine less than 100nm long? Especially when you have to include the power supply (or power receiver) within that space.

 

[Mark6]

That reminds me. We've had nanotechnology for many years. We called it "chemistry."

The way I like to say it: We always had nanomachines.They are called "enzymes".

 

[Dinwar]

I would say that this is putting the cart before the horse except that would be giving it too much credit. Putting a leaf before a horseshoe might be closer.

Not really. It's merely a re-statement of a thought experiment I've been toying with since the first time I saw kudzu. Doesn't matter what the planetary monoculture is: such a monoculture is simply instable, and cannot last over time periods at a geologic scale. Of course, there never WAS such a monoculture; the applications of this are more in figuring out how the breakdown happens.

It's akin to Hardy-Weinburg Equilibrium: it cannot exist, but asking "Why does this existing system fail to match it?" can lead to interesting conclusions.

You cannot build sentient nanites.

Perhaps, perhaps not--I doubt anyone, including you, understands sentience sufficiently to answer that question. Further, you're confusing a sentient nanite with sentient nanites, a critical error. Neurons aren't sentient. Humans are.

How many working logic gates can you fit into a machine less than 100nm long?

How do you build a supercomputer when you can't build a supercomputer? It's not a riddle--it's a question with very practical applications, and direct relevance to this discussion.

 

[Brian-M]

How do you build a supercomputer when you can't build a supercomputer? It's not a riddle--it's a question with very practical applications, and direct relevance to this discussion.

If you can't build a supercomputer, you get someone else to build it for you.

But I suspect the answer you were looking for was by networking a large number of low-power computers together to act as processors in a parallel-processing virtual supercomputer.

But in that case, it's not true that you can't build a supercomputer, you're just using regular computers as components in building the supercomputer.

Further, you're confusing a sentient nanite with sentient nanites, a critical error. Neurons aren't sentient. Humans are.

Although, the question arises of how the nanites are going to communicate with each-other effectively enough to be able to develop sentience without adhering together to form a coherent object... essentially becoming a nanite-based brain.

A single neuron isn't sentient. Even neurons aren't sentient. But a brain formed from neurons can be. It's the brain itself which is sentient, not the neurons it's composed of.

In the same way a single nanite isn't sentient, nor even clusters of nanites are sentient. A brain formed from nanites might be, but then it isn't a case of nanites being sentient, what you have is a sentient artificial brain that happens to be composed of nanites.

If you're thinking that you can get a flowing liquid or fine powder that's also sentient, I doubt it'll work. The slightest movement within it would be constantly disrupting thought patterns.

 

[Dessi]

Although, the question arises of how the nanites are going to communicate with each-other effectively enough to be able to develop sentience without adhering together to form a coherent object... essentially becoming a nanite-based brain.

A single neuron isn't sentient. Even neurons aren't sentient. But a brain formed from neurons can be. It's the brain itself which is sentient, not the neurons it's composed of.

In the same way a single nanite isn't sentient, nor even clusters of nanites are sentient. A brain formed from nanites might be, but then it isn't a case of nanites being sentient, what you have is a sentient artificial brain that happens to be composed of nanites.

I don't think you'd need sentient nanites to do something "intelligent" (scare quotes used deliberately, I mean some complex task which appears to require some problem-solving strategy). There are many examples of robots following simple rules which allow them self-organize into complex shapes, build structures, and fly in flocks.

Large groups of nanites are less likely to behave like a thinking brain, and more likely to behave like a swarm of insects.