Nano-Scale Robot Arm Moves Atoms With 100% Accuracy 266
destinyland writes "A New York professor has built a two-armed nanorobotic device with the ability to place specific atoms and molecules where scientists want them. The nano-scopic device is just 150 x 50 x 8 nanometers in size — over a million could fit inside a single red blood cell. But because of its size, it's able to build nanoscale structures and machines — including a nanoscale walking biped and even sequence-dependent molecular switch arrays!"
Exponential Growth (Score:5, Funny)
So, the first one builds a friend, then each builds a friend, and each of those builds a friend. Soon enough there will be millions, and they will be able to invade your blood cells!
I for one welcome our nano sized robot overlords
Science has triumphed once more!!!! (Score:4, Funny)
Now it is possible to build the perfect woman! Of course, it'll take a few thousand years to get her fully assembled.
Re:Exponential Growth (Score:5, Funny)
Because they are nano sized would that not make them under lords?
A New York professor (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Did we just break heisenberg's principle? (Score:5, Funny)
>>Isn't that only for sub atomic particles? This is moving the atoms themselves.
No, the uncertainty principle applies to particles as well. All matter exhibits wave-particle duality (the De Broglie wavelength). Even relatively large molecules like C60 fullerenes have been shown to diffract through a slit.
Re:DNA (Score:3, Funny)
Well, a good portion of DNA is now known to fit the description "sequence driven molecular switch arrays." I would say the answer is a resounding 'Yes!'
The follow-on question - after determining which switches to throw for me to grow wings - how long before I go through probate to change my name to Warren Worthington?
Re:Exponential Growth (Score:5, Funny)
Re:DNA (Score:2, Funny)
Why wait to change your name?
Wings or not, you are still going to have the same problems with gravity as everyone else.
I guess once you build your (enormous) space habitat it might be cool to have wings.
To paraphrase an old chestnut.. (Score:5, Funny)
yes, but where the scientists want them and where the scientists have told its programs to put them are two different things!
Re:Did we just break heisenberg's principle? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Question: (Score:5, Funny)
Gold?
Can they make HP ink?
Re:Did we just break heisenberg's principle? (Score:3, Funny)
"Why aren't we moving?" "I'm lost"
Bloody woman
Re:Exponential Growth (Score:3, Funny)
They control our physiology, but we control their programming, so they may be some kind of meta-lords.
Re:Exponential Growth (Score:2, Funny)
So, the first one builds a friend, then each builds a friend, and each of those builds a friend. Soon enough there will be millions...
Sounds like Amway.
Re:Exponential Growth (Score:3, Funny)
The Jack Putter machine: zero defects!
Re:A New York professor (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Exponential Growth (Score:5, Funny)
Its the next big thing.
Re:Did we just break heisenberg's principle? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Exponential Growth (Score:4, Funny)
I think Scientology has a copyright on "Inner Lords."
Re:A New York professor (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Exponential Growth (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Did we just break heisenberg's principle? (Score:5, Funny)
i don't know why this is rated funny,
beavis only saw "diffract through a slit"
Re:Exponential Growth (Score:3, Funny)
Re:No it really is 100% accuracy (Score:3, Funny)
I can assure you that nothing is ever 100%.
and you are 100% certain?
Re:There's a positive side (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Typo: I wrote the inequality backwards (Score:5, Funny)
Schroedinger's cat (Score:3, Funny)
With all the misinformation in this thread, Schroedinger's cat is rolling over in its grave... with probability one half.
Re:Exponential Growth (Score:4, Funny)
Re:There's a positive side (Score:3, Funny)
Just because she calls it nano doesn't mean....aw.
I hope he names it after himself (Score:2, Funny)