/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9764602]

Is nanotechnology bullshit /sci/?

[Anonymous No.9764607]

>>9764602
i dunno, is your CPU bullshit?

[Anonymous No.9764609]

>>9764602
True nanotechnology is engineered viruses and bacteira etc.
If you think we're ever going to have tiny little robots doing things like that, yea you're retarded.

[Anonymous No.9764643]

>>9764607
>>9764609
So Musk is just lumping futurists in with people who do actual materials science then?

[Anonymous No.9764651]

>>9764643
Seems so. I'm sure the batteries on a Tesla rely heavily on all kinds of nano stuff.

[Anonymous No.9764656]

>>9764602
Nanotechnology is totally legit. Perhaps Elon's noticed a pattern where the people who do actual nanotech don't put "nano" in their bio.

[Anonymous No.9764701]

>>9764602
Not as bullshit as measuring the truthfulness of facts with public consensus, as Elon was suggesting with his Pravda idea which she was calling pathetic.

Capitalist piggu is on some Fahrenheit 451 shit where the population thinkpols ourselves.

[Anonymous No.9764717]

>>9764602
it is! Nanotechnology is a word that essentially means nothing! Defining something by a size scale is dumb.
>>9764651
>>nano stuff
any battery does! most batteries have reactants that are very small!

[Anonymous No.9764727]

>>9764643
Nano people do all kinds of stuff. Some work on materials, some work on biomolecules etc.

[Anonymous No.9764728]

>>9764717
>Defining something by a size scale is dumb
I agree, it's literally the exact same engineering principles regardless of scale. A CPU is just really tiny gears in a tiny little gearbox.

[Anonymous No.9764738]

less bs than anything elon had ever done

[Anonymous No.9764747]

>>9764602
It's absolute memeshit

[Anonymous No.9764750]

>>9764738
This

[Anonymous No.9764753]

>>9764728
>> A CPU is just really tiny gears in a tiny little gearbox.
what the fuck are you even trying to say? CPUs use transistors. Before computers were made of integrated circuits they used transistors too. The processes we use to make these transistors haven't changed much from when the term nanotechnology was coined. I don't even know what the fuck you are getting at with gears and shit. Gears and shit still work at the nanoscale.

[Anonymous No.9764780]

>>9764753
>Before computers were made of integrated circuits they used transistors too

are you implying that modern computers somehow don't use transistors?

[Anonymous No.9764817]

>>9764602
I think Elon has a burnout or something. SpaceX is struggling with actually reusing the rockets, which is the same thing as his dreams of colonizing Mars becoming impossible, and Tesla might well be non-existent in a year or two. Him dating that emo-chick and ranting on twitter are no good signs concerning his mental health.

[Anonymous No.9764824]

>>9764602
100%

[Anonymous No.9764827]

>>9764780
Learn to read.

[Anonymous No.9764832]

Nano CPUs were not made to create this.

[Anonymous No.9764838]

>>9764827
>Before computers were made of integrated circuits they used transistors too.

[Anonymous No.9764848]

SpaceX is going bankrupt next year because launches dropped by half and he is going crazy.

I guess "reusability" doesn't work so well in the end, huh...

[Anonymous No.9764849]

>>9764832
Was this the title opening for Third Rock From the Sun?

[Anonymous No.9764862]

>>9764849
I thought that show's intro was real footage?

[Anonymous No.9764978]

>>9764832
big if true

[Anonymous No.9764987]

>>9764753
my fellah, this is what our mutual friend is explaining. he is saying that nanotechnology is the same thing as technology just small. he is saying if you know how to make gears in a gearbox you know how to make nanomachines. is an analogy

[Anonymous No.9765046]

>>9764728
>A CPU is just really tiny gears in a tiny little gearbox.
This is what engies actually believe.

[Anonymous No.9765049]

>>9764987
Quantum effects start fucking with transistors once they're on a small enough scale, you absolute brainlet.

[Anonymous No.9765924]

>>9764717
Nanotechnology means using nanobots/nanites/nanorobotics

[Anonymous No.9766161]

'nano' is the least of her bios problem.

[Anonymous No.9766219]

>>9765924
Convince me that what you said isn't complete bullshit.

[Anonymous No.9766221]

>>9764643

Mr. hyper loop making fun of futurists is fucking rich.

[Anonymous No.9766244]

>>9764832
No way you could fake that reflection, unless you can admit that the government/Elon Musk has CGI capabilities WAYYY beyond those used in blockbuster movies.

[Anonymous No.9766257]

>>9766161
You know her academic career is going nowhere if she’s focusing on, “the intersection of science and culture”

[Anonymous No.9766406]

>>9766244
Sure kid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3ue35ago3Y

[Anonymous No.9767022]

>>9765924
Absolutely wrong. I don't think anyone is working on nanoscale robotics, that won't be feasible for at least a century.

Nanoelectronics, defined more generally, is a wonderful field with a cacophony of applications, especially in photonics and nanowires.

Nanotech in general is an enormous field, but the majority of devices intended for applications in catalysis, photochem, ultrafast computing, drug delivery, medical imaging, etc. haven't "reached" the engineers yet, i.e., they're mostly being studied by inorganic and physical chemists. That being said, at least 40% of well-funded academic pchem, inorganic, and chemical physics research is intamatley related to some kind of nanomaterial. And we already have GNPs in our pregnancy tests and quantum dots in our tv screens.

Nanotech is an absolutely huge field and will continue to be for some time. Why wouldn't it be? Are you gonna rope off the size dimensions 1nanometer-1micrometer and say "Nope, nothing can be built or accomplished within these clear red lines"?

[Anonymous No.9767137]

>>9764602
You have parts in your device or your computer that are 1 atom thick.

[Anonymous No.9767175]

>>9766244
You don't know what you're talking about.
>>9766406
>>9764832
Why would they even need a car in front of a green screen if they could just CGI the entire thing?

[Anonymous No.9767273]

>>9764602
he can't keep getting away with it!

[Anonymous No.9767294]

>>9767175
Because denyers can't think through obvious steps.

[Anonymous No.9767313]

I hate the fact this became news in my home country just because one of the people who got upset and replied was from there.

[Anonymous No.9767356]

>>9764656
high IQ post

[Anonymous No.9767605]

>>9764838
you are clinically retarded

[Anonymous No.9767617]

>>9766161
She's right, though.

[Anonymous No.9767618]

>>9766221
It really is.

Someone needs to check him. His fame has gotten to his head, especially that "we're living in a simulation" bullshit.

[Anonymous No.9767654]

Is le billionaire meme man surrounded by sycophants that smell his farts all day and tell him they smell good or what?
At least other billionaires are smug and condescending in private.

[Anonymous No.9768412]

>>9764701
No-one needs to use his site, so what are you really complaining about, the fact that a open system of rating would exist?

[Anonymous No.9768598]

>>9764717
>Nanotechnology is a word that essentially means nothing!
>Defining something by a size scale is dumb.
Don't these two points contradict each other? Nanotech has a very specific definition derived from the size of the technology, so it isn't meaningless at all.
Also, calm down with the exclamation marks.

[Anonymous No.9768601]

>>9767022
>cacophony of applications

[Anonymous No.9768950]

>>9764602
this dude is literally just grasping at ways to complain about shit for no reason other than to be a pedagogue who played deus ex like once. who gives a fuck

[Anonymous No.9768956]

>>9764643
Musk isn't an engineer and has only the loosest grasp on how shit actually works. i had a couple buddies who interned at Space X and they said he would just manage by walking around. he'd come over and ask what you were doing, try to nitpick your method without having any background information, and then walk off to do it to someone else.

[Anonymous No.9768969]

>>9764602
My skin made from nano materials

[Anonymous No.9768976]

>>9764849
>>9764978
>>9766244
>>9767175
The mods deleted it! Interesting...

[Anonymous No.9768998]

>>9764602
No it's just burry small(bs)

[Anonymous No.9770296]

>>9768956
Everything I read about Elon reminds me of my old boss

You get these guys who are kind of batshit but come up with interesting ideas, and are really just good at explaining the idea and getting other people to do it for them

They know just enough about how to implement it to be a pain in the ass, view their employees as a resource for building the idea, and all their staff consequently hate them

[Anonymous No.9770301]

WTF I love Elon Musk now

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1000560049389907969

[Anonymous No.9770346]

>>9770301
ELON NO

[Anonymous No.9770470]

>>9764602
>transistors 22nm
>transistors are nanotechnology
So yes nanotech is relevant

[Anonymous No.9770923]

>Is nanotechnology bullshit /sci/?
Nanotechnology is not bullshit, per se, but it sets off my bullshit detector. And bullshit usually follows it. I think "nano" is hand-wavy. Any discipline at that size falls under the umbrella. Is the "nanotechnology" biological? Materials?

[Anonymous No.9770934]

>>9770470
>22nm
What decade are you living in?

[Anonymous No.9770940]

[Anonymous No.9770941]

Elon uses Twitter for shitposting and it's time people realize that.

[Anonymous No.9771139]

>>9770301
OY VEY

[Anonymous No.9771247]

>>9764602
No

[Anonymous No.9771319]

>>9768956
>>9770296
I have a friend who works at SpaceX and gave me a tour of the Hawthorne facility. Apparently while Tesla's company culture includes a fair amount of Musk hero worship, people at SpaceX don't really like him very much, mostly because he doesn't contribute a whole lot but still somehow gets all the credit.

[Anonymous No.9771488]

No nanoscience is basically mordern condensed matter physics and biology/chemistry. That's it

[Anonymous No.9771496]

>>9770940
>A 1000 times better
My sides

[Anonymous No.9771953]

Nanotech can be any size if there's a bigger copy.

[Anonymous No.9771990]

>>9764602
He was probably just feeding a troll.
That being said, "Ahem" or any other thing that sounds like that in a typed sentence really gets on my nerves.

[Anonymous No.9771996]

Materials science and manufacturing such as nanoscale lithography are real. But nano- is extremely broad without qualifiers.

[Anonymous No.9772024]

>>9771319

Worker bees are the fucking worst for this sort of attitude. They sure as shit wouldn't have built their own engineer-only rocket co-op without Elon Musk. Him being a maniac and making it happen is the only reason they're building their little rockets in the first place.

[Anonymous No.9772056]

>>9764602
Of course not. Nanotechnology is exactly like materials engineering, but in a smaller scale. Just take a few nanotechnology classes in your uni and figure it out.

[Anonymous No.9772073]

>>9772024
Yeah, but he could at least be modest about it.
People raise him up as some sort of genius, when he's just a venture capitalist.
Maybe it's just marketing and PR so he can get more money to get his projects off the ground.

[Anonymous No.9772096]

>>9770940
>picotech is 1000 times better

[Anonymous No.9772119]

>>9770301

the absolute out of his mind goyim

little does he know all his enterprises lie on the modern """""""economy"""""""" of tending-to-negative interest rates and the jews could fuck him at any point

[Anonymous No.9772208]

>>9772073
It’s probably just PR. The government is more likely to give you money if the people think he’s a hero/genius etc.

[Anonymous No.9772217]

>>9772208
So with that in mind I guess it's kind of shit his staff doesn't get much credit.
However, if they really care about furthering tech, it's best to just not care about fame because it's better for everyone involved.

[Anonymous No.9772268]

>>9772217

Every one of them is completely replaceable by another engineer. Indeed they are doing something great, but only as part of a team.

[Anonymous No.9772284]

>>9764602
There's a difference between nanorobotics, which is bullshit, and things like nanoparticles. Nanoparticles are everywhere, including in batteries, your CPU, and the fuel you dump into your explosion-powered chariot (unless you buy the cheap shit like a peasant). Nanorobotics of the future will just be genetically-engineered bacteria and viruses with both natural and artificial base pairs in its encoding.

[Anonymous No.9772295]

>>9772284
I hope we won't stop at bacteries and eventually start to build things a bit more complicated - like plants and mushrooms at least.

[Anonymous No.9772298]

>>9772295
Well macrobiology is just large groups of microorganisms, so it still applies.

[Anonymous No.9772305]

>>9772298
I wish it were that simple. We need to codify all that jazz which defines architecture and interactions on the macro level, to the same DNA which is micro level and never defines those macro things directly.

[Anonymous No.9772308]

>>9772305
I suppose I just don't fully understand the purpose of each part of the human genome.
Something like 90% of our DNA doesn't encode for proteins from what I read a while ago, and while that includes telomeres, do we know what determines body structure? What stem cells need to turn into bone or cardiovascular tissue?

[Anonymous No.9772320]

>>9770301
>>9771139
>>9772119
He didn't say anything about Jews at all you low-IQ troglodytes, holy shit. Take some time off 4chan and learn how normal people think. The tweet he was responding to implied that "powerful people" are separate from the media but meddle with it, he was implying that powerful people own the media already. Nothing at all about the religion or ethnicity of those powerful people.

[Anonymous No.9772325]

>>9772308
>I suppose I just don't fully understand the purpose of each part of the human genome.
As far as I know, noone does. And to even ask the question about the purpose of particular part of genome is somewhat complicated.

>do we know what determines body structure?
Presumably yes, the genome. But not in some very direct way. Maybe we should discuss it in the terms of multipatterns in the genome, consisting of variable number of genes, that codify eeehhh something, that then generates some other patterns that - and so on.

[Anonymous No.9772328]

>>9772325
Makes sense. I suppose that once we learn precisely the mechanisms behind a macroorganism's structure, we can derive our own biological machines by altering said processes.
I'm holding out for the days of biocomputers. Towers made of flesh, powered by ATP-enriched fluid, that interface directly with the mind. It's a long ways off, but what a fucking day that would be.

[Anonymous No.9772332]

>>9768950
>to be a pedagogue
This is considered an insult only in those
benighted societies that do not value education.

[Anonymous No.9772338]

>>9772308
DNA is read by rna or enzymes or some shit and proteins are formed which are the actual structure, as for all the regulatory networks that's still a big mystery.

[Anonymous No.9772345]

>>9772328

I've got a flesh tower full of ATP-rich fluid for you to interface with any time ;)

[Anonymous No.9772346]

>>9772338
From my understanding, enzymes like CRISPR zips along the DNA strand, and enzymes "read" the strand and produce analogous mRNA strands which leave the nucleus, being picked up by enzymes floating around the cytoplasm, where they are converted into the actual proteins they encode for.
But at least for humans, the majority of our DNA doesn't encode for proteins. So something else has to be going on.

[Anonymous No.9772349]

>>9772345
Sort of had that coming...

[Anonymous No.9772353]

>>9772328
>Makes sense. I suppose that once we learn precisely the mechanisms behind a macroorganism's structure, we can derive our own biological machines by altering said processes.
Now we don't even know how plants communicate with other plants (but we know for sure they do, and by a number of different ways).

>I'm holding out for the days of biocomputers.
Yes, this and very much this.
Efficiency is incomparable with digital junk we have for now. If I recall it correct, plants do computations 50 times less effective than theoretically achievable level (considering thermodynamics laws), but modern CPU do it 100,000 TIMES less effective.

>Towers made of flesh, powered by ATP-enriched fluid, that interface directly with the mind. It's a long ways off, but what a fucking day that would be.
Why should we stop at computations only? Full fledged robots would be way better.

[Anonymous No.9772364]

>>9772346
Yeah, DNA is unzipped, an RNA template forms and is sent to a complex to transcribe those to amino acids that chain up and clip off to form proteins. Some junk DNA theories are that they are DNA that simply didn't do enough harm or didn't express themselves at reproductive ages so they're evolutionary leeches as they were never selected against. That theory also goes into aging as part of it may be due to this junk DNA actually expressing later in life. Other DNA might not code directly for proteins but manage the expression of other areas of the genome.

[Anonymous No.9772365]

>>9772353
>Full fledged robots would be way better
A very valid point. We're just now entering the age of affordable bioengineering, which will, if my assumptions are correct, bring all other aspects of medicine and technology forward by a century, not to mention vastly increase the average life expectancy.
Biofactories are the first step, microbiomes that produce whatever compounds we program them to. After we can produce just about anything we need, we'll see biomachines, little semi-autonomous multicellular organisms working in tandem to complete tasks.
Once we deconstruct the nature of macrobiological structures, we will build incredibly complex biomachines. Then we'll see the era of entirely artificial creatures, organic in nature but never before seen in this universe. I think at that point, if we haven't already decoded the nature of consciousness, we will. Then the era of true transhumanism begins.

[Anonymous No.9772380]

Nanotechnology is just a marketing buzzword that used to be very popular but now everyone with a brain has been sick of hearing it for years.
No different from current bullshit overapplied terms like AI and "the cloud".

[Anonymous No.9772382]

>>9772380
>the cloud
Don't even get me fucking started.

[Anonymous No.9772386]

>>9772382
it's the blockchain now

[Anonymous No.9772388]

>>9767618
>simulation hypothesis is bullshit
Why do you think so anon?

[Anonymous No.9772395]

>>9772386
what if we hosted the blockchain on the cloud?

[Anonymous No.9772398]

>>9770301
Screenshot please so I don't have to create a shitter account

[Anonymous No.9772399]

>>9772388
Not anon, but simulation hypothesis makes a lot of unsubstantiated assumptions, ie something as complex as the universe can be computed, why our ancestors would choose this method of studying us, why they would create endless amounts of them and if they even could. Sim hyp. and Rokko's Basilisk are just shitty versions of Pascal's Wager.

[Anonymous No.9772405]

>>9772395
AI blockchain on the cloud, powered by nanotech to sell weed(omg weed is LEGAL, didja here it cures cancers and failing marriages)

[Anonymous No.9772412]

>>9772399
The hypothesis explains how it can be simulated. Some points would be that a more advanced civilization would have better computing power than we do, and that processes could be massively reduced if things only needed to be rendered when observed. The latter seeming to be supported by quantum mechanics as well. The "why" is always left open for debate, since nobody can answer the question of why we exist. It could be as simple as research. Who knows.

[Anonymous No.9772415]

>>9772405
We need to have daily scrums and regularly review our agile DevOps procedures.

[Anonymous No.9772417]

>>9764602
I mean nano with nothing else there is kinda bullshit. I think that he is just calling out people who think they are some sort of "scientist" when really the LARP behind real science work.

[Anonymous No.9772420]

>>9772399
Here's, my question to you. What makes you think it couldn't be computed? If we have a set set of rules, like the laws of the universe gravity, thermodynamics etc. Wouldn't that make things easier to compute? In this sense it's much like determinism. Sure, you can make the argument that we have free will, but generally our decisions are affected by our environment. In this sense, if the laws of the universe are the same, it would compute exactly the same every time, unless there was a variable somewhere. Maybe we're just a simulation and our "creators" are testing different effects of gravity. Maybe in the "next" universe, gravity will be 2 times stronger. Then our universe would turn out different. But there is no reason to believe that our universe would turn out any differently if it reset under the current laws of physics.

[Anonymous No.9772441]

>>9772412
How does QM reduce processing power? Observers aren't just sentient beings they're just particles that can interact ie a photon can be an observer. The issue with a lot of brain in the vat and simulation ideas is that its very anthropocentric. If we were in an illusion and couldn't trust our senses, why even conceptualized the true reality in terms of our illusory experience ie brain in a vat assuming we have anything remotely recognizable as a brain in the true reality and by trying to imagine anything outside our experience a person can just say whatever the fuck they want to be true; at that point argument is useless as no position becomes more or less provable through observation or argument as the brain vat group and the simulation group would just agree to disagree.

[Anonymous No.9772445]

>>9764717
>Defining something by a size scale is dumb.
Microbiology BTFO

[Anonymous No.9772453]

>>9772420
Many systems are nonlinear which make modeling them extremely complicated, if you factor in QM you would somehow need true randomness within the simulation. Besides that, modelling something doesn't mean it will actually give you any useful information. If they play the model and want to create an accurate physics model, whether humans exist or not is irrelevant, if they want an anthropology model then there are less convoluted and more sound ways of doing so.

[Anonymous No.9772478]

>>9772453
Maybe we weren't the purpose though. Maybe we are a simple by product. Also, please expand on the "true random" portion. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding, or maybe I don't have a good enough grasp of QM. But from the way I see it. If the universe were to reset to a single point once again, and the "Big Bang" were to expand at the same rate, while still constrained under the current laws of physics. Why would there be any reason to believe the the universe would turn out any differently? The same force of gravity would pull the same space dust into the same shape as the earth is now allowing for the same exact historical events to take place. Maybe I'm straying too far into assumptions here, but I just don't see how anything would turn out differently.

[Anonymous No.9772487]

>>9772441
Anon I had a really hard time reading that because of the run on. I'm willing to listen but at least present it in a way that people can understand, please. Anyway, I'm not the one writing the hypothesis and I'm not an encyclopedia for it so don't quote me on this.
>How would QM affect processing
Basically, they apply wave particle duality to loading times. Quantic shit theoretically exists as waves until observed, where the interaction seems to turn them into particles. This may be interpreted as information loading something into its “true” or observable form, or form to be loaded.
The entire universe doesn't need to be loaded at once, only the parts being observed do. An electron doesn't need to be any specific form (mathematics may still describe it as a wave and it can actually not be a wave if that makes sense?) until it's observed.

[Anonymous No.9772494]

>>9772478
Not him but if something is simulated it most likely runs functions which include chances in them. For example, running a simulation of caramel coating an apple isn't going to be EXACTLY the same every time. Particles can move in different directions (within some boundary) without reason. As long as everything behaves in its own boundary it's ok. But the thing is: they have boundaries, it's not the same exact numbers every time.

[Anonymous No.9772499]

>>9772478
The universe, as far as current theorists know, has true randomness operating at the smallest scales. Normal randomness ie rolling dice, shooting pool, would be perfectly deterministic but seem random due to us not having enough information ie hidden variables. True randomness is behavior that truly does have no causal link, we can't look at an outcome and perfectly map it back to its cause no matter how many variables we add to the equation. Building that into a simulation would be extremely difficult, and playing it multiple times could lead to different outcomes even if controlled variables are the same. Another point would be, if the universe was perfectly deterministic and able to be computed, what would the ancestors even gain if they already know and can map out the exact history of the universe. If we're in a simulation I'd rather it be the dreams of an Elder God than some dude playing the sims.

[Anonymous No.9772515]

>>9772499
One could make the point that we are the ancestors, and that an advanced civilization simulated a universe to see how a species could essentially "start from scratch".

[Anonymous No.9772538]

>>9772515
Yeah I suppose so, I just feel like big people proposing it with seriousness with flimsy foundation is a bit misguided. As I said above, it's trying to use observations to come up with a framework when normal science done that with a lot more soundness, so you either end up with metaphysics where people can just come up with anything or shitty science.

[Anonymous No.9772557]

>>9772538
Hence "hypothesis", it still doesn't have enough yet to be a theory. All I know about the hypothesis are the basics of it and that seemingly more credible scientists are leaning towards believing it the more our understanding of physics progresses.

[Anonymous No.9772589]

>>9772320
>being so autistic you can't comprehend humour

[Anonymous No.9772617]

>>9772494
That makes sense. I'm not very well versed in CS, so this stuff is out of my scope. I'm trying to use reason to sort through it, and still miss a bunch of pieces. Is there such a thing as "true random" in a computer process like that? Everything is sequential step right? So how does it decide these "random" direction the caramel will flow in? It has to derive it from some kind of process right?
>>9772499
But what are these "true randomness" factors that are operating. What do you mean by true random? Are these "dark matter" type of factors where we say "we don't know, but they fit our model, so they must exist"? What is truly random about our universe?
Again, maybe we're not the purpose. Maybe we are a byproduct. Maybe it was meant to model different laws of physics than their own. Maybe our universe operates with different laws than theirs does. I can only speculate. I don't think they're playing Sims, I think we are the penicillin that accidently grew on some dudes petri dish.

[Anonymous No.9772700]

>>9772617
I'm not a CS guy. Can't answer any of that stuff. Is anything truly random anyway? All I know is that you run 10000s of simulations of tea being poured into a glass, all of them will look very similar since it's a specific situation and there are specific boundaries, but upon inspection you will see that none of them are exactly the same. I have no idea why this is other than random processes that occur which seem to be sufficiently modeled using pseudorandom numbers anyway.

[Anonymous No.9772724]

>>9768601
that's how you detect a 19 year old with thesaurus

[Anonymous No.9772739]

>>9764728
What?
We call it nanotechnology because the engineering principles change entirely at the nanoscale. Once you hit nano you need to deal with quantum effects tunneling, reyleighs criterion etc.
GTFO