Rules Question 004: Nanotechnology

You can't build working gates the size of an atom due to problems with keeping the electrons in channel. It simply isn't possible due to the laws of physics so no, with any tech level this is impossible. Even with advances in technology today we haven't been able to miniaturize processors much further than they already have.

And if every foglet is only in touch with a small subset of the fog then processing power will be limited to that space. This again puts an upper limit on the processing power of the fog, perhaps only a few million nanomachines will be in contact (this will still be smaller than most processors anyways). With the distributed architecture and the amount of equipment needed (again, the data bus alone will be massive) it is impossible for them to keep up with a conventional processor mass for mass because it is far more efficient to simply compute and not have to deal with all the overhead. And of course by forming multiple brains on the fly you run into the problem of the cloud fighting itself.

And again, a brain is a single entity. Brains do not move on their own, they do not have their own internal power, they do not shape shift, teleport, or have any of the other properties of U-fog. If anything brains are a good example of why u-fog won't work, the collection of cells that is the human body (and the complex organs they make up) require centralized command because cells and organs can't think for themselves. The human body does not work like a cloud of nanomachines in the least because it is so much more efficient to organize into organs(machines) of increasing complexity.

Yes, of course, nanomachines can't work on every task at once and are incapable of acting alone, that's why they assemble into dedicated nodes with seperate purposes.

And they can't operate by themselves, no, single-celled organisms won't work, they simply can't exist due to processing constraints and blablabla.

Yes, individual cells are so inefficient that the human body has a specilised organ, made up of individual cells no less, to coordinate (not control and direct, mind) the individual functions of each organ, yeah, muscle cells don't automatically line up and pulse in time with each other without nervous stimulation.

Yeah, Uso, you know so much about computers, chemistry, nanotech, and biology! I should just give up right now because you're so obviously right about everything I've been telling you you're wrong about.

I mean, wow, nanostructures totally can't conduct electricity and act as logic gates, you're so correct, I don't even know why I'm posting these links that prove you wrong.

Cells are mobile, they can stretch and shift their shape and even produce new substructures within themselves to respond to outside conditions (gasp), this applies to neurons, which are also cells btw. Cells can talk to each other via chemical packets, kinda like talking through smell, these packets of molecular data is so useful that it is common among foreign cells as well (a universal language among cells, bacterium, and viruses, GASP!).

Sorry if I'm getting snippy, but you're wrong, stop saying wrong things and admit you were wrong. Stop it.

Nanostructures are still more than 300x larger than an atom and the gate they built is more than 300,000x larger, and you need tens of millions of these to make a processor, so still no atom sized computers. Compared to a cell a processing structure is still going to take up non-trivial space.

And again, cells don't think for themselves, they react automatically to outside stimulus. This is great for making things like muscles where you need every cell to only contract or expand when needed. This is terrible for things like U-fog because you can only pre-program so many actions and you can't rely on the cells to do their own processing because you would then have to co-ordinate so many different cell's processing power. Of course cells can talk to eachother (no one is disputing that) but the chemical signal they send works because they are relaying messages between organs (not necessarily individual cells unless it is working on a much smaller scale).

Then of course you still run right into the same problems on SD.net, that even with nanomachines that have human level intelligence it is going to be extraordinarily difficult and time consuming to even make basic shapes.

Did you read both links? Did you see that picture in the second one? a benzene ring was being used as a molecular logic gate!

a benzene ring is six atoms arranged in a hexagon!

my statement stands correct!

How can you continue to argue against that?! How can you even conceive of saying 'no' in the face of an overwhelming 'yes'?

And again, cells don't think for themselves, they react automatically to outside stimulus. This is great for making things like muscles where you need every cell to only contract or expand when needed.

Click to expand...

There a group of thinkers that propose that human beings don't really think for themselves and just react to outside stimulus. Follow me for a moment, what are you without sight, touch, hearing, taste, or social contact? Nothing, you don't learn to speak, you have no sensations since your nerves won't report tactile or aural phenomina to you conscious mind, without already existing humans and the ability to percieve the outside world and speak or hear or read lips or read braille you have no concept of 'the other' and probably no ability to gain the knowledge required to conceive of 'the self'. Therefore, without outside stimulus, the human being ceases to exist as something sentient, it is reduced to a mass of unfeeling and unthinking flesh. Thus, humans don't think for themselves, and free will is just a comfortable illusion (possibly a delusion).

Then of course you still run right into the same problems on SD.net, that even with nanomachines that have human level intelligence it is going to be extraordinarily difficult and time consuming to even make basic shapes.

Click to expand...

More idiocy! I've already addressed this fallacy, the machines don't need anything close to human levels of intelligence, even collectively. With trillions upon trillions of assemblers working through a 'super-network' with a predefined plan of action you have all of those machines performing thousands of operations per minute, perhaps per second, and not just on single atoms or molecules. Prefabricated sections of the product can be joined together with molecular assembly techniques to probably build the end product even faster than if it had been crafted atom-by-atom.

The end result, at least in theory, is the most structurally sound product possible built in a time-frame equal to or greater than conventional macro-scale techniques.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_printing#Advantages

Look, it even says 3D printing saves time over conventional manufacture of models (a car is just a bigger, heavier, more expensive model). For example, while injection mold casting can produce a lot of bitz sprues, the comsumer still must cut, de-flash, convert, assemble, and finally paint each model. There are professional 3D printing firms that take miniatures orders and print whole blocks of troops in a matter of minutes instead of hours and far more materiel-efficiently.

And this is still a macro-scale manufacturing technique and in its infancy no less! Nanoassembly promises, so some of the experts in the field say, to be even faster and more efficient.

a benzene ring which breaks apart on its own unless it is cryogenicly frozen?

And no, cells don't think for themselves, they exist as part of a larger system.

When it comes down to it 3d printing is a conventional manufacturing method used for rapid prototyping and is already used partially in conventional manufacturing methods. At the end of the day it isn't a swarm of nanomachines building an object, nor have you solved the problems put forth on SD.net which explain why nanomachines won't work instantly.

...nor have you solved the problems put forth on SD.net which explain why nanomachines won't work instantly.

Click to expand...

What idiot ever said instantly?!

Nothing works instantly!

And no, cells don't think for themselves

Click to expand...

I never said they did, I said humans don't either! Yet more proof you aren't even thinking when writing your arguments! Don't put words into my mouth or twist them around!

...a benzene ring which breaks apart on its own unless it is cryogenicly frozen.

Click to expand...

Thermal constancy is a pittance of a problem. Nothing says room temperature on Earth is the way things must be, even the global climate can't agree on which average temperature it should remain.

Not only that, but you clearly neglected the section of the article where it said they were looking for ways to remove benzene from the equation and replace it with something more usable. This is just experimental technology, it doesn't need to be perfect yet, it already broke one boundary and it shows promise of breaking your little niggling complaint further into the project.

Keep it civil, please. The debate is starting to get out of hand.

If you remember what we are talking about, its that nanomachines won't work quickly in producing something. We've built nanomachines today, and they have limited uses but ultimately they are confined to lab type settings.

And of course if you want to make anything with nanomachines, assembling something atom by atom is going to take considerable time.

There are serious problems with the U-fog and they will never be the superpowered machines that Hall envisioned due to limits in energy storage, processing power, and the utility of something so small.

Even with the lab grown variety there are still the basic problems inherent to all nanomachines
1: Small things are vulnerable to radiation
2: Thermal stress makes it very difficult to build anything on that scale
3: Arranging, distribution power, fuel, and controlling the nanomachines is extremely difficult

At the end of the day, this is going to keep nanomachines from working like they do on TV. They won't grey goo, they won't make things instantly out of thin air, and they won't act like the magical U-fog.

Uso said:

At the end of the day, this is going to keep nanomachines from working like they do on TV. They won't grey goo, they won't make things instantly out of thin air, and they won't act like the magical U-fog.

Click to expand...

Uso, as far as I can tell, Cyber is not stating nanomachines will do any of these things. He only states that with the proper technological advances in miniaturization, nano-scale construction will be faster and more accurate than today's macro-scale.

Yes, they need a controlled environment. So what? That's not difficult to create.

Also, you assume that each nanomachine needs to know how to do the entire job. That's plain stupid. Like an assembly line, each nanomachine only needs to know how to do a specific job, relying on the others to do theirs properly. This is no great leap, and there's no reason why we couldn't translate macro-scale assembly doctrine to micro-scale.

Ultimately, it looks like you two are debating two very separate topics. Cyber is stating that given the technological advances to build nanomachines of the given size, they will be entirely capable of not only constructing products made by macro-scale methods, but do so faster and with greater adherence to the given specifications. Uso seems to be arguing that we cannot develop nanomachines given our current level of technology and that should we be able to, science fiction has incorrectly illustrated its functionality. If you guys could get on the same page, it might smooth things over.

Have you forgotten how to dream, Uso? I think you have.

You have your list of barriers, technological and physical. Now, instead of banging your thick book of physics and touting its laws as unbreakable, can you find ways around them? Or, as nature does even in itself, bend them or find conditions that allows you to break them?

You have your wall of limitations set before you. Now find ways around, over, or through them to do what you are trying to do. If you won't, then please let us try in peace. We may not make utility fog as it is imagined, but maybe we can find something better while looking. Necessity may be the mother of invention, but I'd say many of her children are "happy accidents".

The two arguments are essentially the same thing.

Nanomachines, because of their inherent limitations, won't be able to do the same job an assembly line can (replicators, grey goo, any fast construction with nanomachines are out).

Because of stiction, thermal stress, ect, nanomachines can't produce a perfect object. Because of their size they can't move very fast (U-fog requires super-sonic nanomachines no less!). Because of their numbers they can't communicate over the entire amount of nanomachines very easily. Simply due to their scale they are stuck working on very small things and in order to do this (like your assembly line example where each nanomachine only knows a part of the job) you need outside help in the form of a computer keeping track of things and appropriately instructing the nanomachines.

The point being is that people use nanomachines like magic. U-fog, grey goo, assembling entire battleships from huge vats of nanomachines, putting you fingers in your ears and saying 'find ways around physics!' and replicators are examples of tech being used as magic, entering the realm of fantasy instead of trying to understand how things work. Cyber's examples fall into this category too.

Realistically nanomachine constructors would be used for rapid-prototyping of small things, creating of new drugs, refining materials, and assembly of complex molecules. I can think of plenty of things to do with the technology but I'm not going to be unrealistic about its upper limits.

Give it another 10 years, we'll probably be making computer components with them in real-life.

My examples?! My examples are from real life!

How can you say that's fantasy when the industry is developing right in front of you?!

I'm flabberghasted!

But, I'm trying to keep my head and prevent devolving into an angry monster that shouts insults, so...

I've shown that atomic logic gates the size of several small molecules are theoretically possible if not yet practically possible. I've elucidated that I don't adhere to the Trekkian conventions of 'magitech' nanites that can do their job ridiculously fast and with material procured from hammerspace. I have, with help from citations and friends, pointed out flaws in your arguements.

Uso, you continually focus on a tiny subset of complaints that apply mostly to fallacious applications of nanotech, and this is the very important part, IN FICTION. Your argument never ceases to deviate from this point of view, as if my proof and protestation fails to even register. Your ONLY sticking point is the comment about data buses, which I admit I have very little knowledge of, but the little research I have invested seems to indicate that you are falsely attributing the processes of this subject, probably not intentionally, to prove your point.

Will utility fog be able to form stairs as I walk up them? Probably not, and that's silly anyways, a rising pillar is more practical and economical of space, though it's not quite possessing the same cinematic quality as the half-formed staircase. But either way, it's a waste of nanites even if possible, and I'm not entirely convinced it is (but it would be cool if it was), a regular staircase or elevator is all that you need.

Will our cities be formed out of nanites? Not in the way you think I'm thinking, cities will be built by nanites working alongside marco-scale elements, skyscrapers will still be built one level at a time starting with the foundations and working up from the bottom instead of the fantastic version where the tower rises fully formed, starting with the very tippy top, into the air from a glob of ficticious gooey nanoassemblers. Subsections of each floor will be fabricated in a factory setting, possibly a temporary one constructed next to the building site erected just before the main construction started, and those subsections will be joined into place at the molecular level by a 'nano-mortar' of sorts. The tower might rise much faster than the steel and glass towers of today, or maybe just a little bit faster, I don't know or care; the main point is that the designs will be able to be much more fantastic and artistic than today's practical grey blocks.

Will you be able to manufacture weapons for an army in the run-down basement of your apartment to lead the next glorious revolution? Are you kidding, where are you getting all that raw material? Some of those elements are rare and illegal, not to mention, what kind of federal investigative beureau ignores trafficking in large quantities of raw material to a non-commercial buyer in the day and age of nanites-at-your-fingertips? Additionally, ignoring all of that, I'm assuming with a typical apartment you're going to be spending a lot of time and effort sanitizing the place and constructing the assembly bay, which itself probably takes some expertise and foreknowledge, not to mention more special purchases that will be noticed. But churning out the hundreds or more probably thousands of weapons, which probably also have legally restricted and protected blueprints, and the ammunition to operate them for any reasonable futuristic engagement against probably superior legal and military force (something on the order of thousands of rounds per glorious soldier-of-the-people) out of ONE small fabrication tank? That's going to take more time and risk of attention than you have.

In short, even with the wonders of nanites, only the groups with the authority, sanction, funds, and infrastructure will be able to mass produce even the simplest of items. And I'm still only betting that production is mildly faster than today's methods.

Simply put, nanites will be like the combustion engine of tommorrow, omnipresent, virtually unnoticed by the populace, but providing a greater depth of awareness for those with the inclination to take the time and look (the engine and its principles opened up rail-less travel, armored fighting vehicles, powered flight, and with some modification, travel into space). Auto-diagnostics will be faster, more detailed, and more accurate on the machines that need them to keep their operators safe (cars, spacecraft, medical machines). Information will be omni-present and more interactive on a larger scale than it is today ("This is your heart monitor, you are showing signs indicating the risk of a heart attack, the paramedics and your insurance provider have been notified and are on standby, refrain from excitement or exertion and please find a safe location in case you collapse").

Nanites and nanotechnology are not a panacea but they are a wide category of highly useful tools that can probably solve many of todays problems, just like marco-scale robots are today (assembly lines, drones, bomb disposal, micro-surgery, sattelites, stock trading, car engines, etc). Sure whole new problems will be opened up for us, but they will most likely have innovative and amusingly curious and dubious solutions, just like nanites are today.

Your arguments against nanites and your reasons for reducing their visibility inside of the game world are those that can be equally used against robots. Fiction always focuses on the action and suspense-laden uses for any technology, and yes, they are often used as a plot point or macguffin, but that has always been true for any story of any age. Our elders had barely quantifiable magic, we have the ceasless march of scientific understanding and technological application.

You are bigoted against a highly probable thing for asthetic reasons, your argument is invalid due to the fallible nature of human sentiment.

I don't see how you proved my points wrong. I actually read what you linked and it turns out the book has questionable science, molecule sized transistors still don't give you the size reduction you need, and the 6 challenges illustrate why it is so difficult to make nanomachines.

What was being discussed is how nanomachines are used unrealistically in fiction. U-fog won't work like Hall portrays, grey-goo won't occur, and building things from the atom up is going to be a slow process.

At this point I don't think anyone is still arguing against that.

Molecule-sized logic gates not small enough? why does this sound ridiculous? you are aware that nanites will probably be on the size order of viruses and bacteria or even as big as animal cells, there's plenty of room for even a supercomputer made of molecular electronics with loads ofroom left over for the internal machinery.

Grey-goo may occur, it's the nanite version of cancer, it's possible, just not a very big threat (have you ever seen cancer cells infect people nearby the victim?)

As far as these six points, the SD.net article outlines eight, oh wait, my bad, you meant the article I linked.

OK, let's look at this from the perspective of nanobot #1. Just to be generous, let's visualize the nanobot as a tiny little worker spacecraft that you control, so it has your human intelligence (rather optimistic for a nanobot, but I am trying to be generous). Your objective is to help the other 99,999 nanobots build a ruler, but from your perspective (inside a 10 micron wide nanobot, so you've been shrunk to roughly 1/200000 your original size), this six inch ruler is more than thirty kilometres long! Worse yet, there are some serious logistical problems to work out:

Click to expand...

Let's start here: comparing a robot, no matter how small, to a human worker is a stupid notion if you've ever watched assembly lines for delicate or numerous products like circuit boards or microchips. Those robots can move almost faster the you can discern with amazing accuracy and timing, things a line of human workers would not be able to accomplish without many more hands that the one wielded by our little robot friend. Secondly, THIRTY KILOMETERS?! Oh my, we've never built things that long before- oh wait, yes we have, plenty of times, here's one example.

1) How do you co-ordinate your activities with the pilots of the other nanobots? Is there a commander nanobot? Are there middle manager nanobots? Who assigns nanobots to which part of the ruler?

Click to expand...

It's called math, genius, each robot has a set of fixed dimensions or at the very least a range of dimensions that can be monitored and controlled, like forming al ine for excercise by spreading your arms and touching the fingertips of the person next to you. Simple addition and environment awareness solves this problem.

2) How do you know where to start, ie- how do you decide where one end of the ruler is going to be, and where the other end is going to be?

Click to expand...

See above, just pick one bot as the start and then measure out till the length of the bot-chain equals the length of the ruler.

[quote3) How do you communicate with the other nanobots? Radio transmissions? How do you communicate clearly with tens of thousands of other nanobots simultaneously? How do you align your movements with theirs? How do you plan?[/quote]

If you don't understand the concept of planning, you're a lost cause to humanity.

4) How much fuel do you carry? That little nanobot vehicle of yours doesn't run on the power of positive thinking, so how much work can it do on a full tank? Where and how do you refuel? How long does it take you to refuel?

Click to expand...

Nanomachines require very little power and can probably be built to run off waste heat from the surrounding environment and supplement that with current passed along connected bots.

5) What is your propulsion system? You're not getting a free ride in someone's bloodstream like the sort of nanobot which looks for cancerous cells (a more sensible application of nanotechnology), so how do you maneuver about on the manufacturing table in order to help assemble this ruler? How do you jet up into the air to get on top of it if you need to? How much power do you have to combat gravity and air currents?

Click to expand...

I surprised he didn't think of working in fluid, isn't this person supposed to be... I dunno, smart?

6) How do you deal with lost nanobots? In a normal manufacturing environment, air currents, static discharge, and other environmental disturbances could easily blow a nanobot out of the group or seriously damage it. Does the plan adjust automatically for worker turnover? Or must this ruler be manufactured in a vacuum-sealed clean-room environment? This is rapidly shaping up to be a ridiculously expensive ruler!

Click to expand...

a nanobot is a nanobot, who cares if they get damaged, just toss away the broken bits to be recycled and send in reinforcements, these little guys are supposed to be cheap and expendable

7) How much payload can you carry? If you're grabbing molecules or tiny particles and attaching them to this ruler, where do you get them from? How many can you carry per trip? How much energy does it take to weld each chunk of metal to the ruler? Do you realize that if you use larger particles per trip, the resulting ruler will have greater porosity? What are you going to do, weld molten metal into the gaps? Consider the energy costs of doing that!

Click to expand...

again, water solves the problems, just pump the raw material into the assembly vat as a solution, going back to my claims of prefabricated nanobits, you can even attach some nanites to the material so they can deliver both material and replacments at the same time

8) How do you assure dimensional accuracy of the overall ruler? The nanobot working on the other end of the ruler is (as far as you're concerned) more than 30 kilometres away, remember? How do you know he's not higher than you are? Do you set up a laser-based perimeter system in order to confine your activities within simple geometric bounds? If so, how do you make more complex shapes than a flat ruler? Do you use tooling in order to confine your activities? If so, what conceivable advantage does this process have over simple die-casting?

Click to expand...

Yeah, how do we build roads or bridges or buildings with any amount of accuracy? Again, the answer to this problem posed by a supposed adept in the field of dealing with things too small to see with the eye is, surprise surprise, MATH. And again, having a scaffold of nanites with predictable and controllable forms really helps with measuring out distances that dwarf individual bots.

Who'd've thunk it? Obviously not this guy.

===

Having realized I shouldn't be bashing the SD.net article, becuase that's not what Uso mentioned in his previous post, I will go on to address what he actaully said regarding this article.

Actually, I don't need to, because the article itself poses solution or lines of inquiry to solve each problem.

Uso, I'd accuse you of cherry-picking data if I was certain, but you're probably just not reading the entire article like I have, so you're just missing the bits where the problems you pose are resolved or at least provided a path to a solution.

I don't think you understand the problem or the topic we are discussing. It is not that you can't build things with nanomachines, simply that it is extremely difficult and time consuming.

Yes we've built long things before, but it is difficult and time consuming.

Yes, you could use a bot chain to measure length but this is hard to do, you have to make sure the bots are straight (impossible due to thermal stresses, meaning you get an aproximation at best) which is time consuming and difficult.

No, you can't run the nanomachines (or anything) off waste heat because the entire environment is going to be saturated in it (no temperature gradiant). Like any system you'll have to find ways of supplying energy and fuel.

And yes you could make a propulsion system, but Hall's U-fog requires it to reach mach 1 at least. Naturally moving around is going to take time and a lot of it to travel any serious distance so again complexity is added here.

And then you talk about replacing nanomachines like it is no big deal, that is going to cost time and energy. After all imagine having to replace a machine in the factory every few seconds.


The points you are making don't apply to the argument or overlook the logistics of operating nanomachines. Reguardless of how you do it, nanomachines aren't going to be super-smart on their own and we won't be getting U-fog or grey goo.

I've locked this topic, at least for the time being, because it seems to be becoming too heated of a discussion. Sorry.