/sci/ - Science & Math

Seems silly to do your undergrad in something so specific. Do something more general like Electrical Engineering or Physics, while doing research in said field and then get your pHD in it.

Depends: Wet (Squishy proteins, polymer engineering) or Dry (Scanning Probe Microscopy, SEM, mechanosynthesis, mechanical chemistry) nanotechology?

Somebody needs to do it, and sure as shit we're not really getting anywhere with the current pack of grant-collectors (i.e. those morons we laughably call "scientists").

Go into the field and be BOLD, and don't apologize for anything. Take risks. DO IT! Show those grant-writers how real science gets done.

I hope this helps OP.

(Referring to dry nano)

How Feasible is a Nanofactory (Philip Moriarty, best guy ever):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XPE07QIFBM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R687ErdGGOU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBrltpO8mXE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3U44vsY28o

Nottingham Nanoscience Debate (Where Moriarty got all pissed and decided to prove mechanosynthesis/mechanical chemistry was possible):
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6086023528639836493

Robert Freitas and Ralph Merkle talk about the synthesis of diamond, graphene and Carbon Nanotubes through mechanosynthesis:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=362294862840163667

>>3800419
Well the situation is that I've actually just started a "master programme" called Nanotechnology at my university. The first two years are basically just an introduction to nanotech, physics, math and programming. Then I'll specialise in either bionanotechnology, nanoelectronics or nanotechnology for materials, energy and environment. I'm currently thinking that nanoelectronics is the way to go.

Thoughts?

>>3800487

Does nanoelectronics include nano-electro-mechanical-systems (NEMS)?

>>3800499
There will be an introduction to nanoelectronics later this semester, so at present I do not know. We are just done with the introduction to nano-ethics, and next we will take on bionanotechnology.

Basically, I think this first semester will be a lot of powerpoint-presentations, lab demonstrations and such. Obviously with calculus, physics and other subjects on the side.

Later on, we will go more in depth on the nano-specific subjects.

You can see what fields are being researched at my university here:
http://www.ntnu.edu/nanolab/research

>>3800541

>nano-ethics
>mfw

>>3800541

The nanomaterials course looks most interesting. Nanoelectronics looks like silicon semiconductors and a focus on quantum dots, which look like they have a future.

>>3800547

Yeah, I know... Basically the introduction course was held by this spaced out professor who kept talking about how it was important to be pro-active and "better safe than sorry". He also drew some parallells to biotechnology and the controversies surrounding research on stem cells, and said that the general populous might have a similar opinion on nanotechnology because some of it might be hazardous to humans / mamals.

>>3800581

Well, there is a great danger of nanoparticles being dangerous to humans and currently I know of no effort to label products by their nanoparticles. I mean, shit, there are materials that will release nanoparticles only under specific conditions, some are deadly, some cause cancer... It's all very serious stuff, and potentially more dangerous than some H1N1 strain fluttering out of a lab.

Fucking nanoparticles, man.

I'm actually holding a presentation on "Silver Nano":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Nano
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_nanoparticles

- later this semester. Haven't done much research yet, but as you may read from the wiki entries, they're not quite harmless.

>>3800589
>>3800589
yeh, carbon nanotubes are causing similar effects (including cancers) to those of asbestos exposure. Apparently both cause physical damage to cells due to their minute size.

>>3800620

I read an explanation as to why capped nanotubes cause damage: The cell confuses them with spherical objects only to realize that's just the cap of a very long tube. But what about Hydrogen-terminated nanotubes? They you can actually, you know, bond into something by dehydrogenating the endpoints and then crashing it on a surface.

Pic related.

Im planning on getting my PHD in nanotechnology (about 30-40% sure) studying theoretica physics right now

Hey Nano-bro, I'll be finish my undergrad the middle of next year. Fuck da haters, nanotech owns.

>majoring in nanotechnology
derp

>>3800637
Maybe you could eliminate the response by removing all sequences that code for H type epsilon, but that's like driving a nail with a wrecking ball.

I strongly suggest you major in something related to nanotechnology like chemistry and materials science then move on to nanotechnology when you know what you're doing.

>>3800793

I think you could terminate it in a structure like this:

http://machine-phase.blogspot.com/2007/11/adding-back-flow-preventer-or-atoms.html

Something that human cells reject.

Though biological systems are so complex. It may be rejected by ordinary cells but it also just happens to go right past the Blood-Brain Barrier ;_;

>>3800419
That's not a major. It's a PhD thesis.

>>3800818
That's like saying that someone should major in math then move onto physics once they know what they are doing. If the course gives them the necessary foundation to work on further stuff, why not just start on the path from the get-go? besides, if you start with nanotech then you'll have more interaction with your profs, much better for getting internships.

dont major in nanotech. it's way too specified too early. do chemistry, chemical engineering, materials science, physics, or electrical engineering for your undergrad. if you still want to go into nanotech then, grad school for that

these lads don't think you got the chops because of your age I say prove them wrong

>>3800832
specializing early is never a good thing. it locks you into one path, giving you no options out. it also gives you no basic foundational knowledge outside your specific area. you have no utility. this makes you much less valuable to employers

>>3800820
>>3800837
Lookit these people not wanting to throw down their chips. If you really want to do it, you should do it from the start.

>>3800850
Please link me to a college or univeristy which has a Bachelor of Science in Nanotechnology.

>>3800849
>implying that you can't take another major/minor/electives.

I'm going to be walking out the door with nanotech and biotech qualifications. feelsgoodman.jpg

that sounds like a really cool major.

>>3800854
Deakin uni in Australia used to do it but they're doing some rejigging of it for next year. One of the uni's up in Brisbane also has a hard-on for it too.

>>3800856
you'll find soon enough that specializing too early is a big mistake. purely from an employment standing, anyone would rather hire the chemical engineer or the electrical engineer who took a few elective classes in nanotech than the guy who majored in it.

>>3800832
Nanotechnology isn't a well developed field yet, he would be better off gaining preliminary knowledge. If this were the 17th century I'd instruct Isaac Newton to study math and logic before moving on to phlogiston theory, Galileo's work and sorcery.

>>3800876
But the underpinning parts of nanotech are well understood and are introduced as needed. Just because he learns the various things about chemistry/physics/etc under the banner of nanotech doesn't make what you learn any less valuable. Also, how do you know that the OP doesn't intend on just doing research?

>>3800874
I'd argue it's not just purely from an employment standing. Science is not a lucky dip, taking some kierkegaardian leap of faith towards specialization in nanotechnology may actually be detrimental to your knowledge of nanotechnology because different fields in science are often inter-related and you are denying yourself a bank of knowledge.

>>3800885
So learning all dat knowledge to specialize in another field is better? wat? You're just shifting the focal point of a range there buddy.

>>3800876
you dont see people doing undergraduate studies in synthesis, polymers, evolution and development, particle physics, etc. you dont specialize early.

Why is anyone assuming that nanotechnology is any more specialized than going a chem major? Under nanotech you have:

-Nanoelectronics/mechanics
-Nanomedicine (assume everything from antibiotics to cybernetic implants has a subtopic here)
-materials
*polymers
*metals
*surface treatments
*composites
-Characterization

And this is just off the top of my head for an internet argument. He's saying "nanotech" in general, not "nanotech, specializing in the use of CNT's to make better dildo's"

>>3800893
>focal point of a range
Cool narrow mindedness bro, how is work at the spanish inquisition? I'm just saying, especially for a fresh new field such as this, people who only study perl end up as lackeys in the basement of some faceless corporation, people who diversify bridge gaps, build bridges and become innovative valued geniuses, if they don't start their own business and become multi-billionaires they are guaranteed 6 figs. Just saying bro. You don't have to be a multi-billionaire genius who gets all the bitches, if you're a communist who likes men that's ok, I've got nothing against that, I'm just saying.

>>3800919
because it's a concentration in a specific sub-field. those things you mentioned arent at all a wide breadth of things to study. if you're studying all of those, you dont get a very good depth in any of them either.

furthermore, you still lack that foundation in anything except nanotech. you have little to no applicable skills outside nanotech. you mention chemistry? with that you have the foundation for work in any sort of factory process, any sort of technical quality control, almost any sort of research and development (most tie back to chem in one way or another), pharma related jobs, any sort of chemical related analysis, agriculture related work, biotech, chem information and sales, forensics, flavor chem, consumer safety, waste treatment, textiles, water, materials, etc. all this because you have a solid foundation. sure, most people specialize later, but it's that foundation that makes them valuable.

as was said before, someone with a wider foundation and less nanotech experience will be seen as a more valuable asset than you. specializing early is just shooting yourself in the foot

>>3800961
But your example of perl only works if you sent off to JUST do perl. Not that you went off to do programming. It's like saying that someone who wanted to do programming in the 1980's should do electronic engineering first.

It's not exactly an uncertain field, Op. Underdeveloped, yes. We haven't had any major breakthroughs in general nano technologies in the last few years. Definitely an expanding field, but not quite there yet.

I'd say go for it. Future will happen sooner or later, might as well jump on the boat before it's taken off.

>>3801014
And if you're worried about the boat not being the right one, pickup another major or do a double degree like these naysayers are suggesting.

>>3801008
Why risk fixating on some irrelevant element of programming/nanotech that may be phased out in a few years when you will study it eventually anyway? You need to get on the saddle first before you take on shit like that.

Maybe in 2050 when we're all nano-augmented transhumans I will concede and say "yeah ok, I suggest people pick up nanotechnology first" but I'm pretty sure the state of nanotech now does not reflect it's level of development 39 years from now. The only situation where studying a niche technology before it's preliminary knowledge would be if that course of education was saturated to the point where it is no longer advantageous compared to the other slightly different but hugely impractical option you suggest.

>>3801082
I'm not sure how it works at your uni, but at mine it was perfectly acceptable to load up on two different majors as long as you had the spare "slots" for it. hence, I majored in Nanotech AND biotech and still had some units to spare. Is that enough breadth for you? I could have picked up biology or chemistry instead if that is what you would have fancied, but why is it that they need to specifically pick up one of the current big fields like chemistry/physics? Strikes me as being "you must be this high compared to Sagan to do science"

The risk of fixating on some small minutiae is present in any field. I for one have no real idea on what I want to do specifically as it all seems to have so much goddamn potential in it no matter what the topic is.