/sci/ - Science & Math

Cell phones.

That's all I can think of.

>>3409834
Can you be more specific?

>>3409844

I think he's talking about processors

Grey goo. Doomed to failure.

biology is already nanotechnology isn't it? It's just that we don't know how to fold protiens yet so we can't build cool new stuff that gets close to as good as nature does.

Brownian Motion - dread enemy of nanites.

>>3409844
Anything

>outer system
>cold of space
>near a comet body, huge solar panels gather the meager energy
>in the shadow, colonies of nanites
>some extracting organics from the ice while others assemble these into usable commodities and refined consumables
>all powered by beamed energy from the solar panels

>nearby planetesimal
>adapted humans, human-derived biologics and technologics busy at work, living off the cometary material

>>3409871
>biology is already nanotechnology

You know. I never thought of that before.

>>3409871
>It's just that we don't know how to fold protiens yet so we can't build cool new stuff that gets close to as good as nature does.
>close to as good as nature does
>He think we can't do better

Let me guess, you also think that growing inside a biological womb is the most efficient way to make babies, too?

>>3409987
Until we can do it ourselves, and improve upon it it obviously is.

>>3409987
Not that guy, but I'll be very pleased if you show me some articles about present-day fully functional apparatus capable of growing a foetus.

>>3409987
>>He think we can't do better

I don't think that what that anon was implying. Perhaps you should try reading more and projecting less.

>>3409865
What's wrong with grey goo?

Goo bump

>>3410399
Thanks, I had forgotten about this thread

>>3410019
The idea is that if we ever make self-replicating nano-bots, they could potentially keep replicating in an uncontrolled manner. Replication of course uses up resources, and if they are allowed to replicate unchecked, they would eventually consume every resource on the planet, essentially turning it into 'Grey Goo'.

Don't make all self-replicating. Only a small percentage of new generations should inherit ability to replicate. Alternatively, use queen nanobots.
Problem solved.

Spoiler: We are grey goo.

What are proteins except chemomechanical machines?

We are in the midst of a paradigm shift, for the first time we have the ability to control our evolution, design organisms as well as design minds and it will only continue to develop.

>>3410422
That's exactly what life does. Not sure why it's a problem.

>>3410480

i wouldn't say its a problem in the context of that being exactly what life does. The problem arises when our survival and all life on the planet's survival is under threat when an uncontrollable blob comes and devours everything. Did you not think of that?

>>3410422
The mechanical equivalent of a cancer. It's continued existence depends on the availability of resources, just like a cancer. And just like biological tumours, there needs to be control mechanisms that prevent grey goos from growing. If starved of resources, or like cancers if they kill their hosts, then they cause their own destruction.

>>3409987

It is.

Show me a self sufficient, self protecting, self repairing machine (well, two) that can create dozens of new machines over the course of its long operational time, and is capable of running entirely on apples (H2O included).

>>3410536
New poster, I will show you one once you show me an efficient interstellar spacecraft. Possible now != ever possible.

Ok guys, can we start to get into the actual science of how nano machines will work? I'm quite ignorant on the subject and wish to learn more.

Here you have an nanobot.

>>3410562
They will basically be molecules that are arranged in certain ways and somehow programmed to achieve certain tasks. Hasn't been invented yet, so can't be too sure on the actual science. A nano-technologist would be good.

>>3410562
Its like reprap but on a molecular level. Google reprap.

>>3410562
Shit on the smallest scale possible, thereby optimizing various functions, for instance computing, and also opening up more options, for instance catalyzing the components of wood pulp into other compounds which micro-organisms such as yeast already do, except now we can design our own enzymes and use materials other than carbon loops and chains capped off with hydrogen and a few nitrogen and oxygen atoms stuck on here and there.

>>3410562
They wouldn't work. Gear would tunnel through themselves and render the Hollywood style nanomachines useless. We're never getting anything better than a 50% improvement in what we have now....

If you want realistic technology, Quantum Computers are the wave of the future!

>>3410657
>body full of functioning proteins
>nanotech will never work, it's a pipe dream

>>3410687
>names chemical as a poc
>implying nanotech is chemistry/chemical engineering

Sure you can build <span class="math">{\bf A}[/spoiler] gear shape molecule but it's impossible to have them work together as a machine that does <span class="math">complex ~ and ~ useful[/spoiler] tasks...

>>3410657
>implying nanomachines have to use the same components as macroscale machines
No.

Life is a proof of concept. But life has requirements that we don't necessarily need: working within a small energy budget and self-replication are the big ones. We can make mechanisms that function at this scale - they already exist in biology.

And your part about gears "tunneling"? Lolno. There are massive problems with assuming the macroscale designs can just be shrunk, sure, but you don't seem to understand the nanoscale environment anyway.

>>3410657
>>3410819
>gears

What? No one ever suggested making nanomachines a spitting image of classical mechanisms.

I wanna get respirocyte implants so I can be an olympic athlete with no training.

>>3410819
>>3410814
>>3410807
You know, most people just post that they meant "-and-" rather than reposting twice.