aDamaDamaDam
21st June 2009 - 06:31 AM
QUOTE (roam+Jan 8 2008, 05:32 AM)
As I see it, computers are made using silicon transistors taht behave as the 1s and 0s in computer "laguage". Nanotechnology, given it's emmensly small size, cannot use silicon transistors (at least as far as I know). Thus it must use a seperate means of mimiking the behaveor of the silicon transistor. Althogh I am hopelessly nieve when it comes to topics like this, I have heard word of the possibility of using a single photon as a sort of uuber hard drive. I have also caught wind of reserch in the feild of turning a single atom into a transistor. Given these are real possibilitys and not insane predictions cast by psudo scientists, what are the limits of nanotechnology? Is there even a remote chance that one day the "green goo" will become a completely independent life form? (I say this because, given the right matereals and enough time [and maby a preditor or two to ween out unseccesful strains] it may be one day possible for a nanotech swarm to fufill all the requirements for "life" I.E. reproduction, growth, metabolism, and adaptivity.) And maby we could use these swarms as husbands/wives, and being able to adapt to their surroundings they would be the perfect husband/wife. As for reproduction, artificial ensemmination would be the only option. (althogh in a "female" swarm the pregnacy and birthing of a human infant could prove challenging.)
-Roan
What do you think the chances are of these green goo monsters ever just happening to fulfill every single last requirement of life?
Alaxir Zoa
8th August 2009 - 04:17 PM
Of course not! Trust me, as soon as we think that we have gotten as small as humanly possible, we will find something else. It's happened once, it'll happen again
Alaxir Zoa
8th August 2009 - 04:23 PM
I have some long-time friends in the CIA, FBI, and the Pentagon. They tell me that their technology is on the verge of actually creating an atomically small robot that could go into the blood stream, into the brain and effectively deal with any cancer, on a perfect scale. And here is the part that has blown minds, THEY CAN REPRODUCE!!! Forever! I hope you guys can grasp the full potential of this. It's enormous!
Quantum_Conundrum
23rd August 2009 - 11:05 PM
The OP seems to be primarily speaking of nano-scale robots. While this is most heavily popularized by the Borg in Star Trek, the idea is not new to science at all. I've seen programs and articles on nano-scale robots on respectable sources even ten or fifteen years ago. Most were very primitive, such as a very simple drill or a simple swimming device. It is obvious Borg-style nano machines are still a long way off.
However, there are some ways to handle the programming of such devices.
I once layed out 4 possible generations of computer-controlled nano-scaled robots. I will atempt to remember what they were.
For all of these robots, I consider the scale to be somewhere between that of a large virus and approximately a human blood cell. The nano-robots of the Borg in Star Trek are about the size of a human blood cell.
1) Remote controlled nano-machine
This is controlled by a central computer just like any normal scaled ROV. It has a nano-reciever and the most basic programming to allow it to recieve commands from the central computer, just like an RC toy vehicle or UAV or ROV, etc. The actually "intelligence" operates at the central computer, which is a normal scale computer. Thus for first generation naon-robots, each nano robot is actually just a remote controlled add-on device of the main computer. The nano robots have various sensory instruments and tools for their jobs, and they have a transmitter and reciever which connects to the main computer by communicating with a wireless hub.
2) Semi-intelligent nano-machine*
This is a transitional generation. Here, most highly intelligent processing is still done by large scale computers(super computer, desktop pc,hand held device, etc,) but the nano machines are now more functional than simply being remote controlled by the main computer. Now they have enough built in memory and processing power to do some tasks on their own.
3) Collective shared processing nano machines.*
Like generation 2, These machines have a large degree of individual functionality, but cannot define true intelligence individually. However, they can network themselves to obtain enough memory and processing power to perform more complex operations of intelligence and programming. In this setup some robots become specialized in processing, some specialize in memory storage, some specialize in sensation, some specialize in communication, etc. When the task changes and they are given new orders from the controlling computer, they will ten be capable of re-configuring themselves and re-specializing themselves as needed for the new task. The large scale computer is only needed as a means of communicating between man and nano machine, and is no longer necessary for actual processing. Once programmed, this collective of nano-machines will continue to carry out its orders no matter what happens to the large scale computer that programmed them, unless given a shut down order.
4) (semi)Self intelligent nano machine*
This is the true "Borg nano probe" style machine. It is a nano-scale robot complete with a transmitter and reciever to recieve orders from the humans interfacing with the macroscopic computer, as well as all relevant nano-tools, and has its own fully functional quantum computer programmed with an AI to help facilitate its orders. it is still a loyal servant, a "tool" in every sense of the word, but once programmed, all processing relevant to its purpose is done on board in a nano-scale quantum computer, without the need of any oversight from normal-scale computers, nor the need for assistance in computations or AI from other nano-machines. This doesn't mean the nano machine wouldn't have needs or uses for other devices. It would still be capable of communicating with large scale devices and other nano-machines for various reasons depending on what type of input it needs. (That is, a medical nano-robot that is attempting to repair bone damage might find input from a macroscopic x-ray machine useful.)
* Generations 2, 3 and 4 may prove to be absolutely impossible to construct.
Even generation 1 would represent an exponential leap in medicine and many forms of manufacturing, as the total usefulness of generation 1 nano-robots is not all that much less than generation 4.
Imagine an AIDS patient could recieve an injection of nano robots even of the type of generation 1, and wear a wrist watch sized control computer. These nano-robots controlled by the computer, hunt down the individual AIDS viruses and destroy them. They could then be programmed to hunt down the Influenza virus as well, and etc. These devices would have sensors as described which would allow the control computer to determine what they are "looking" at, and then if it is a hostile entity such as a disease causing virus or bacteria, the computer would manipulate the nano-machine to destroy that entity. This works much like a remote controlled UAV hunting down a muslim terrorist in Iraq or Afghanistan.
light in the tunnel
21st October 2009 - 01:33 AM
This will probably seem like a frivolous use of nanotechnology to some people, but might there eventually be the possibility of buying music in the form of a spray or gel that you could put in your ear? In the gel would be suspended numerous nano amplifiers that are designed to synchronize playback of a recording when they are activated by reaching a temperature close to body temperature. The music would be hard-programmed into the nano-amplifier and it would only play forward, unless there was some way to build a nano-radio that received audio transmissions from a hand-held device, but that would defeat the purpose of leaving gadgets behind.
Maybe in a few years we'll be able to get music in gel-form. Maybe you will be able to connect a gel-writer to your pc and then download music to be programmed into the gel. It would be like hand-soap dispenser with a USB connection. Is this possible?
MjolnirPants
21st October 2009 - 04:43 AM
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Oct 20 2009, 08:33 PM)
This will probably seem like a frivolous use of nanotechnology to some people, but might there eventually be the possibility of buying music in the form of a spray or gel that you could put in your ear? In the gel would be suspended numerous nano amplifiers that are designed to synchronize playback of a recording when they are activated by reaching a temperature close to body temperature. The music would be hard-programmed into the nano-amplifier and it would only play forward, unless there was some way to build a nano-radio that received audio transmissions from a hand-held device, but that would defeat the purpose of leaving gadgets behind.
Maybe in a few years we'll be able to get music in gel-form. Maybe you will be able to connect a gel-writer to your pc and then download music to be programmed into the gel. It would be like hand-soap dispenser with a USB connection. Is this possible?
Frivolity is a subjective quantity. If it can be built, and people will buy it, it will eventually exist.
This is actually a very creative idea, and well in keeping with the realm of possibility.
An advantage of this sort of design (from the supplier's point of view) is that it allows limited use of the product where applicable, while still allowing multiple copies to be made by the user where appropriate.
I think a lot of what you say is pretty dumb, but I gotta hand it to you, this was a very good idea.
flyingbuttressman
21st October 2009 - 12:56 PM
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Oct 20 2009, 09:33 PM)
This will probably seem like a frivolous use of nanotechnology to some people, but might there eventually be the possibility of buying music in the form of a spray or gel that you could put in your ear? In the gel would be suspended numerous nano amplifiers that are designed to synchronize playback of a recording when they are activated by reaching a temperature close to body temperature. The music would be hard-programmed into the nano-amplifier and it would only play forward, unless there was some way to build a nano-radio that received audio transmissions from a hand-held device, but that would defeat the purpose of leaving gadgets behind.
Maybe in a few years we'll be able to get music in gel-form. Maybe you will be able to connect a gel-writer to your pc and then download music to be programmed into the gel. It would be like hand-soap dispenser with a USB connection. Is this possible?
Or you could just implant a sound playback device into the ear canal itself, and have that interface with a CPU somewhere in the body, which will have its own hard drive and wireless card. Who needs a spray when you can just purchase, download and listen to the music wirelessly?
Besides, nanotechnology is not suited to audio playback. The whole point of a speaker is its ability to move air. Also, the heavier the speaker driver, the better the playback quality.
light in the tunnel
21st October 2009 - 05:07 PM
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Oct 21 2009, 04:43 AM)
Frivolity is a subjective quantity. If it can be built, and people will buy it, it will eventually exist.
This is actually a very creative idea, and well in keeping with the realm of possibility.
An advantage of this sort of design (from the supplier's point of view) is that it allows limited use of the product where applicable, while still allowing multiple copies to be made by the user where appropriate.
I think a lot of what you say is pretty dumb, but I gotta hand it to you, this was a very good idea.
Thanks for the compliment.
Unfortunately I'm not as quick as you to say that something isn't frivolous just because it can be built and people will buy it. That's not to say I'm totally opposed to it. It just irritates me that people build fortunes on frivolity while other people work their butts off to produce something really needed and have much less to show for it.
light in the tunnel
21st October 2009 - 05:22 PM
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 21 2009, 12:56 PM)
Or you could just implant a sound playback device into the ear canal itself, and have that interface with a CPU somewhere in the body, which will have its own hard drive and wireless card. Who needs a spray when you can just purchase, download and listen to the music wirelessly?
That's true, but I dislike earbuds because they keep coming lose and wobbling around in your ears. I guess I'm a control-freak in that regard. Also, I have found that the miniature technology I buy tends to break, so something that is disposable would overcome that limitation. If the amount of natural resources used are small, and it is not costly to replicate a technology in large quantities, disposability shouldn't be an environmental issue. After all, you never hear people complain about chewing gum causing deforestation, global warming, acid rain, or anything else - until they step on it of course.
QUOTE
Besides, nanotechnology is not suited to audio playback. The whole point of a speaker is its ability to move air. Also, the heavier the speaker driver, the better the playback quality.
Right, but if you could suspend a network of nano-amplifier/speakers in gel, they might be able to work like those satellite-dish arrays that combine many smaller dishes into a net-array. This technique is actually used in large venues with multiple speakers where timing-delays have to be coordinated to prevent an echo effect as the sound coming out of one speaker arrives at a listener before or after the same sound-wave from another speaker. Timing-delays shouldn't be a problem in an area as small as a human ear, though.
Still, the compounding effect of an array of very small nano-amplifier/speakers might still not be strong enough to match an earbud-type device. Still, I would avoid having a device implanted in my ear canal, whereas a gel that can be washed out would bother me less. I'm sure there would be whole movement about it giving you cancer or causing ADHD or something like that.
MjolnirPants
21st October 2009 - 08:00 PM
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Oct 21 2009, 12:07 PM)
Thanks for the compliment.
Unfortunately I'm not as quick as you to say that something isn't frivolous just because it can be built and people will buy it. That's not to say I'm totally opposed to it. It just irritates me that people build fortunes on frivolity while other people work their butts off to produce something really needed and have much less to show for it.
Tell the son of a record executive that the money which put him through medical school and allowed him to save the lives of hundreds of people was the product of frivolity.
Tell a musician that their business is frivolity, or a visual artist. Tell a scientist who was inspired by sci-fi movies and stories to enter his or her field that their inspiration was frivolous.
You said something smart, then you turned around and said something stupid again. I guess even stupid people can say smart things once in a while...
QUOTE (FBM+)
Besides, nanotechnology is not suited to audio playback. The whole point of a speaker is its ability to move air. Also, the heavier the speaker driver, the better the playback quality.
Well, the right kind of nanotechnology could form a speaker out of the gel he spoke of. It could cover your entire ear canal, and even form sound-dampening structures on the outside, to eliminate other sounds. Plus, due to the size of the particles, it could reproduce high-frequency sounds with more accuracy than most tweeters, assuming it was designed well.
light in the tunnel
21st October 2009 - 10:52 PM
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Oct 21 2009, 08:00 PM)
Tell the son of a record executive that the money which put him through medical school and allowed him to save the lives of hundreds of people was the product of frivolity.
Tell a musician that their business is frivolity, or a visual artist. Tell a scientist who was inspired by sci-fi movies and stories to enter his or her field that their inspiration was frivolous.
You said something smart, then you turned around and said something stupid again. I guess even stupid people can say smart things once in a while...
QUOTE (FBM+)
Besides, nanotechnology is not suited to audio playback. The whole point of a speaker is its ability to move air. Also, the heavier the speaker driver, the better the playback quality.
Well, the right kind of nanotechnology could form a speaker out of the gel he spoke of. It could cover your entire ear canal, and even form sound-dampening structures on the outside, to eliminate other sounds. Plus, due to the size of the particles, it could reproduce high-frequency sounds with more accuracy than most tweeters, assuming it was designed well.
You bring up an extremely relevant economic point: i.e. frivolity may become productive when expressed in certain ways. Your examples are interesting because they suggest inspiration through art and inspiration to support productive development of someone else because of art. Basically you raise the motivational value of art in the economics of productivity.
This is different from George Bataille's economic thesis that productivity culminates in its own destruction and the only way to prevent this is to dissipate productive energy before it reaches critical mass. You're not saying that art is frivolous, and that frivolity has the necessary function of dissipating surplus energy, with Bataille, but rather that are is productive and contributes to the re-investment into the economy as growth. Big difference there.
I'm not sure I agree with Batailles' economic theory anyway. I think it is more likely that energy gets dissipated one way or the other, without allowing it to happen intentionally. It may also be that once people start making the intentional choice to actively dissipate energy and surpluses that this becomes a form of productive planned economic activity, which itself further grows the system in the direction of generating more surplus energy (the bigger the productive system, the more efficiency is expanded, and hence the greater energy-surpluses generated).
Anyway, as you can see I've been reading Bataille lately - and I assume his ideas will be intelligible to scientific thinkers since it is based on the circulation of energy through a productive system/economy; but maybe you will dismiss his work on the basis that he writes in a literary style. Hopefully, you'll just follow the ideas from my post, and it won't matter anyway.
I appreciate the fact that you see me as a fool, but I actually do study and think about these things before talking about them. The fact is that Bataille was someone revolutionary in viewing energy-dissipation as a necessity. The rest of us capitalists are concerned about fiscal conservation and limiting frivolous expenditures in order to conserve resources for more productive projects. You do recognize that don't you?
flyingbuttressman
21st October 2009 - 11:07 PM
For the record, I still have doubts that nano-scale speakers could accurately reproduce the full range of range of musical pitch. There's just no way that microscopic robots (even working in concert) could move that much air. Next time you're next to a bass speaker, look at how much the speaker moves when deep notes are played. I understand that the human ear doesn't require that kind of power, but nano-scale is taking it too far. Surgically implanted ear buds are the way to go
light in the tunnel
21st October 2009 - 11:19 PM
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 21 2009, 11:07 PM)
For the record, I still have doubts that nano-scale speakers could accurately reproduce the full range of range of musical pitch. There's just no way that microscopic robots (even working in concert) could move that much air. Next time you're next to a bass speaker, look at how much the speaker moves when deep notes are played. I understand that the human ear doesn't require that kind of power, but nano-scale is taking it too far. Surgically implanted ear buds are the way to go
Bass does thump, doesn't it? Still I wonder if the nano-gel was close enough to your eardrum if the effect of thumping base couldn't be simulated with a relatively light pulse. Maybe it would sound more like your imagination than actual music hitting your ears. That's a vague concept, so scratch it if there's a temptation to ridicule or ban me for saying it.
As for the surgical implants, I think I'll opt for good clip-ons that are not so loose they wobble but not tight enough to pinch. Probably these are already available, but are too expensive for me to justify budgeting such frivolity:)
flyingbuttressman
21st October 2009 - 11:25 PM
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Oct 21 2009, 07:19 PM)
As for the surgical implants, I think I'll opt for good clip-ons that are not so loose they wobble but not tight enough to pinch. Probably these are already available, but are too expensive for me to justify budgeting such frivolity:)
Why does everyone wimp out when it comes to surgically implanted gadgets? I want Wikipedia in my god damned head. Maybe IMDB too... hmmm...
Step 1:
Figure out how to send complex signals to the brain. If we can intercept and translate the signals that the eye sends to the brain, then we can simulate ocular input. This would give us a virtual 'third eye.'
Step 2:
Since we can already use electrodes to control a computer mouse with the brain, the next step is syncing up the output and input so we can use a visual computer interface without even opening our eyes.
Step 3:
Miniaturize.
Step 4:
Implant.
Step 5:
Wintermute.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click
here.