The Limits Of Nanotech

roam

8th January 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

DavidD

8th January 2008 - 07:46 AM

I think even for supercomputer it would be to hard to create better than humans DNA and only there is genetic modification way, but this is not very good... So I think that for creating humanoids from 0 it will need know all good and bad things, and for human brain or for supercomputer it is to much and so nobody can create human better than Nature and natural selection per long time existation.
About transistors like atoms, I think there will never be such transistor made like there don't exist neuron maded of few atoms.

roam

3rd February 2008 - 09:09 PM

and maby, just maby we could go so far as to militerize these nanoswarms, making soldiers that never die, never get tired, do not overheat or freeze to death, do not need water or food, and can make desisions on their own...... damn! I just described the terminator! NVM!!!!!!!!!! BAD IDEA!!!!!

hahaha JK LOOOOOOOLLLL!!!!! like I would let a stupid sci fi movie get in the way of science!

Bringer-of-Light

27th June 2008 - 08:17 AM

You have seen too many movies my friend. 'Nanoswarms'? I don't know what you are going for but you have achieved absurdity. I doubt that this was a totally serious topic, only one thing here is worthwhile and that's DavidD's realization that computers cannot improve on DNA. That's because computers don't have access to divinity or divine inspiration. Why are you trying to use computers to create life anyway? Don't you think that might be heresy? I guess if a computer created this nano-pseudo-life that you are envisioning then you could make a case for it being equal to divinity? I understand what you are doing I just don't understand why.

SirShanson

1st August 2008 - 08:07 AM

Thing is we can create computers which are more intelligent than us because we are ourselves intelligent, then when push comes to shove if you think about it we work very much as a computer does in terms of our thinking and sensing mechanism at least. Nerves either do or don't have impulses traveling through them much like 0 and 1, we are just slightly more complex in that the frequency of the 0s and 1s varies the intensity. As such I believe we can create something we would view as being intelligent and thinking but in the end it would still just be a calculating machine and as such not seen as living. We would have to understand far more about the other chemicals and structures present in terms of creating them if we were to create life.

Cheers,

SirS

p.s. If we were to create life through nanotechnology or any other means, in the end we would probably just be copying the template laid down already for us.

Guest_macaronee

11th August 2008 - 05:45 PM

Early in the 70s, Feeney, Grove and other CTC lead computer engineers including Intel start-ups (a memory chip seller back then designing the 1201, first 8-bit CPU) made it very clear - the limit to silicon will only be defined by the actual physical limits of the world. Hence, they will continuously push until they reach a dead end.

As for conjectures of the future; I don't spend time on that since anything from a massive variety of events can happen. Science often can't predict what it invents and discovers, that's why they are major discoveries which you can never know the impact of beforehand but it is always critical in human developmental progression after discovery. None of the major discoveries were known, realized, properly understood or thought possible beforehand at some period. That's the exact same with modern CPU development too - follow design goals, experiment, venture and hope for the best. end result may be completely different to what you predict and hope for, based n the unknown problems that may and do arise even after pre-production SPICE and similar test model simulations.

lyrics

12th December 2008 - 09:42 AM

The effects of nanoparticles can be dual in nature leading to several safety concerns that must be considered. For example, some nanoparticles have the rare ability to cross the blood-brain barrier, which can assist the medical field by delivering drugs to the brain; however, those same capabilities can pose greater risk if toxic particles are inhaled. In environmental applications, the penetration capabilities of nanoparticles could lead to unwanted contamination of our resources if not used properly. Because of these and other issues, the report suggests increased funding for health and environmental safety research on nanoparticles and requests that basic information on the nature and toxicity of nanomaterials be made available to the general public before the products enter the market. Much of this information is now considered confidential.

Unfortunately, amending or developing new laws to regulate the use of nanotechnology is difficult in the short- and even long-term. The report calls for immediate ways to ensure that nanotechnology is used responsibly in the interim. It supports current efforts underway in the public and private sector to implement voluntary programs and industry standards. "These voluntary programs can provide the necessary bridge for ensuring health and environmental safety, but they should not be considered a permanent fix, as they will not ultimately foster public confidence," said Jennifer Kuzma, CSTPP associate director and editor of the report. "With the growing number of nanotech products on the market, it will be even more difficult for government and industry to keep up if they don't start thinking now about nanotechnology oversight in a coordinated and comprehensive way."

Enthalpy

12th December 2008 - 01:30 PM

First, very different things are called "nanotechnology" which have little in common. Microelectronics is at nanometre size now using its quasi-traditional technology; individual atoms can be picked and placed at will; fullerenes and nanotubes become increasingly common; and we've had nanometric powders for decades. I wish we had different names for them.

Some danger is possible from fine powders, as was already observed from coal dust and from asbestos. Experimental evidence suggests some sizes of nanotubes may be harmful. This shouldn't be generalized to other technologies we also call "nano".

Then, I'd like to point out that risks are difficult to predict and safety is impossible to prove. Remember Thalidomide: within any knowledge available then, left-hand and right-hand molecules had identical medical effect, and all tests very extremely favourable, but the drug had horrible consequences. So telling to test new products until they're "proven safe" doesn't make sense.

Cusa

12th December 2008 - 09:16 PM

I would like to know what the most important thing is that has come from nanotechnology. What is the best thing it has done so far?

Mitch Raemsch

Jozen-Bo

14th December 2008 - 01:33 PM

Nano technology is a very interesting development of our times. I cannot be certain of the limit myself, given how fast we continue to develop technology, though without being able to program the nano particles beyond a certain range, their development will remain fairly limited. Given that they can increase the amount of computations their structures allow, they will develop further faster. Still, linked systems composed of limited parts could be possible, though that involves complex relationships we have yet to fully understand. That said, these are the known computing techniques being considered and probed at our times:

* Quantum Computer
* Chemical Computer
* DNA Computing
* Optical Computer
* Spintronics based computer

All of them approach the nano technological development question in some way or another. DNA computing has already been achieved, we can stored up to 4 Gigs in one DNA strand alone, thus it is possible to store a tremendous amount of information in biologically grown spaces. The problem at the moment with it is its processing speed, which is not as fast as direct electron processing. It may be possible to get around that however, and this would turn each cell into a potential virtual super computer of its own, given that a single neuron cell can contain large numbers of DNA within the chromosomes, even the mitochandria have DNA of their own to spare.

One important question to consider is how much of the DNA can be spared in a living human subject? We can grow molds that are computers, but if we imbue this into a person what are the consequences? This is a form of nano technology currently at our disposal so the question seems reasonable.

Considering that if we could combine these all together that would be quite an achievement. I can only speculate what that would be like...A quantum chemical DNA optic spintronic computer???

hfilipenk

13th January 2009 - 05:30 PM

please see at-http://nanochemical.blogspot.com

zaithyn

11th April 2009 - 05:28 PM

How can I be both more efficient and systematic in finding what interests me?

christian

24th April 2009 - 04:18 PM

QUOTE (hfilipenk+Jan 13 2009, 05:30 PM)

please see at-http://nanochemical.blogspot.com

If I understood properly , you think that can be possible a biologic computer ?

clarityx

3rd May 2009 - 09:30 AM

Yes, research in this area is already running at full speed

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.

nitigarg

7th December 2009 - 04:03 AM

I am nano scientist and I believe that in nano world impossible does not exist.
It just a matter of time, when you actually see things happening, which you are questioning. Hopeful within our life time!

flyingbuttressman

7th December 2009 - 04:05 AM

QUOTE (nitigarg+Dec 6 2009, 11:03 PM)

I am nano scientist

Interesting.

Laidback

14th January 2010 - 09:24 PM

QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Oct 22 2009, 07:00 AM)

Well, the right kind of nanotechnology could form a speaker out of the gel he spoke of.

Why a speaker? when all that is needed is electrical impulses fed to the right cells that lay near the hairs that produce the very same impulses for everyday detection of sound..

To which here is where nanotechnology can be a dawg send, to those who lack these hairs from years of exposure to sound that has destroyed them..

And speaking of sending signals via electrical impulses, why not have nano camera's embedded in artificial eyes, which again feed to the appropriate cells much the same signals that a normal eye would convey to the brain?

Or how about nano sensors embedded near a spinal cord injury, that transmit received signals to another nano system that simply passes on the signals beyond the injury?

nuff said, as I feel nano technology is still rather limited, and if one cares to read other threads on nano technology it becomes obvious many hurdles are yet to be overcome..

Cheers,

Peter J Schoen..

Laidback

14th January 2010 - 09:39 PM

QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 22 2009, 10:07 AM)

For the record, I still have doubts that nanoscale 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 nanoscale is taking it too far. Surgically implanted ear buds are the way to go

Yes sir re,

And if we consider how the ears tiny hairs vibrate and create electrical impulses, and if we bypass the hairs - our hearing ranges may even exceed that of all species!

And if we extrapolate this notion of bypassing inefficient biological systems to the eyes, human eye sight may damn well exceed to unheard of capabilities..

So for all you military geniuses get on with it! As can you imagine the huge advantage if ones eyesight can see in the dark as if it were day, and whats more zoom in to an Ant one or more kilometres away and to then take aim and BOOM! Blow it away with an ordinary hand held gun, err I guess nanotechnology may also have to be used to steady one self if that is to be possible, but hey its all possible?

cheers,

Peter J Schoen..

Quantum_Conundrum

24th January 2010 - 02:52 PM

QUOTE (Laidback+Jan 14 2010, 04:39 PM)

Yes sir re,

And if we consider how the ears tiny hairs vibrate and create electrical impulses, and if we bypass the hairs - our hearing ranges may even exceed that of all species!

And if we extrapolate this notion of bypassing inefficient biological systems to the eyes, human eye sight may damn well exceed to unheard of capabilities..

So for all you military geniuses get on with it! As can you imagine the huge advantage if ones eyesight can see in the dark as if it were day, and whats more zoom in to an Ant one or more kilometres away and to then take aim and BOOM! Blow it away with an ordinary hand held gun, err I guess nanotechnology may also have to be used to steady one self if that is to be possible, but hey its all possible?

cheers,

Peter J Schoen..

Unfortunately, military defenses are always going to be needed.

Eventually, there will be little or no need for actual human soldiers on the battlefield. Already, drones and other ROVs are revolutionizing warfare. soon everything will be remote-controlled or robotic vehicles, aircraft, and man-sized walking or treaded robots.

Quantum_Conundrum

24th January 2010 - 04:02 PM

I think that the limits of nanotechnology are pretty much somewhere around the cellular level.

As I've said in the past, I believe we will one day have borg-style medical nano-robots of various types.

"Personal" Artificial Robotic Immune System ("P"ARIS)

I should patent this...

Wear a wrist-watch sized control interface, and you have a small injection of nano-robots which hunts down viruses, bacteria, and other microscopic pathogens and destroys them. When new viruses are discovered, their specfications are downloaded from a global network, just like any other software upgrade. This will allow a permanent blanket artificial robotic immune system(ARIS) capable of destroying almost any pathogen, even before an antibiotic or vaccine has been discovered.

===
A similar system could be developed for agriculture which would chase away harmful insects, while allowing beneficial ones to do what they do(pollenation.) The robots could themselves artificially pollenate the plants, just to make sure all plants are productive.

Robotic Osteo-Plating Electronics (name needs work)

This is a similar system of nano-robots which work to repair bone damage, especially in women, and also even gradually plate the bones with strengthening metallic nano-bracing using residual trace metals from foods...without the need for "surgery".

Fully Integrated Sensory Upgrade Network (FISUN)

Implants and jewelry which give the person improvements to all major senses. You could wear earrings that double as hearing aids AND artificial eyes to see to the side/behind, without the need for deforming the lovely human form.

You could even potentially network your house and car to these recievers, and command the coffee pot to start brewing before you even get out of bed, or tell your car to start up from inside the house on cold mornings...

See below.

Extra Sensory Perception

This includes eventual electronic "telepathy" by implanting cell-phone like recievers and transmitters directly in the brain, allowing communication "at the speed of thought"(for those who don't want this, they could have earring-sized recievers in their ears). The ability for humans to see in infra-red or UV, and hear sounds far above and below the usual range, Possibly even having integrated GPS, nano-radar and nano-sonar systems as well, allowing complete perception and command of the environment on an individual basis. Effectively the ability to see and hear in every spectrum and bandwidth, in every direction.

Automatic Nano-Damage Repair Of Individual Dendrites (ANDROID)

Robotic repair of nerve damage and/or nano-implants bypassing said damage.

Personal Hair Removal And Styling Electronics (PHRASE)

Nano robots that can give you a shave and hair cut with your favorite style, and keep it fresh every day...

Alaxir Zoa

26th February 2010 - 12:53 AM

First of all, the quote is idiotic(I like it) and...... yes, it is true. A new scientist recently made an astounding discovery of unimaginable proportions. I can't believe you haven't heard of it yet. It was all over the news. He, called it spell-check and even made a pretty little button for it. Who knew?

All right now, back on subject.

Nano-technology

My opinion on this subject is that as long as they can find something smaller, they can go smaller. If you even want to go hyper-Godzilla on it, let's put in this picture. A cell is tiny. The things that make up a cell are even smaller. And what makes up those? Even smaller things. If we ever get to that point, computers wouldn't be able to go any smaller or more precise and would be considered clumsy and in-the-way of things, correct? So, we program them to make even smaller computers using the technology that we found, which in turn could go on forever.

I predict that in 20 years, the entire Library of Congress could fit on the tip of a finger, everything will be holo-graphic, 3D technology will be the only thing we see because of a tiny chip in our eyes or sunglasses, people will be so addicted to virtual-life games that "real life" will be much used, even more than now, and we will have advanced in so much in so many ways that it will be scary. And as an old friend of mine once said, a long time ago, when I asked a question. And he said

QUOTE

Change, it is good. Change, it is necessary. Change, it keeps us going. Change, it will go far. But in the end, we will say, "Even though it wasn't as great as all is now, things were better and simpler." And we will wish for those times again. (solemn moment of silence) So, let's enjoy it! When's the game on?

It will never end, how small we can go. It will never
1. Because it can't.
2. Because people won't let it.
3. Because we couldn't argue about this anymore, and that would be a pity.

My regards to you.

*Alaxir

This message was made possible by Thinking Ahead Technologies, Neverstatetheobvious.com, The National Organization of Simple Things, Howtomakesomebodyhappy.com, KFC, ESPN,

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Change, it is good. Change, it is necessary. Change, it keeps us going. Change, it will go far. But in the end, we will say, "Even though it wasn't as great as all is now, things were better and simpler." And we will wish for those times again. (solemn moment of silence) So, let's enjoy it! When's the game on?

It will never end, how small we can go. It will never
1. Because it can't.
2. Because people won't let it.
3. Because we couldn't argue about this anymore, and that would be a pity.

My regards to you.

*Alaxir

This message was made possible by Thinking Ahead Technologies, Neverstatetheobvious.com, The National Organization of Simple Things, Howtomakesomebodyhappy.com, KFC, ESPN,When's the game on?

and your very own Alaxir.

QUOTE

I'm Bob Corker and I approve of this message.
-Bob Corker, Senator of Tennessee

Capracus

16th June 2010 - 01:01 PM

QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Jan 24 2010, 04:02 PM)

Wear a wrist-watch sized control interface, and you have a small injection of nano-robots which hunts down viruses, bacteria, and other microscopic pathogens and destroys them. When new viruses are discovered, their specfications are downloaded from a global network, just like any other software upgrade. This will allow a permanent blanket artificial robotic immune system(ARIS) capable of destroying almost any pathogen, even before an antibiotic or vaccine has been discovered.

I remember you stating in another thread that the human body was adaquate in it's present form, and that further modification would be unnecessary. Now you want to mess with God's creation by artificially enhancing our immune systems? Blasphemy!

QUOTE

Implants and jewelry which give the person improvements to all major senses. You could wear earrings that double as hearing aids AND artificial eyes to see to the side/behind, without the need for deforming the lovely human form.

If you're going to allow synthetic enhancement, why not genetic enhancement as well. There are plenty of existing biological examples of enhanced sensory systems that could be Incorporated into the human form. With all of the unflattering variations that occur in our present human form, some extraordinary functional modifications would be a welcome change. How about those Na'vi
women.

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.