Nano-switches and Self-Assembling Nanostructures 73
emc3 writes "Those wacky scientists are getting small again. Some folks at Yale have come up with a reversible molecular switch. And at Princeton, they've discovered a method of getting a sheet of resin to assemble ordered arrays of nano-pillars. They say that this process could lead to a new generation of flat-panel displays or DRAM.
" Nanites. It's what's for dinner.
Dinner? (Score:2)
Something not so Nano! (Score:1)
Nanites, et al (Score:2)
Self assembling nanostructures (Score:1)
But ... (Score:2)
Just think about it:
Nano's (Score:1)
By the way, does Hemos have a nano-fetish?
DRAM? Oh oh. (Score:1)
Caution is needed here before throwing all this technology together 'in the name of research science.' I can't begin to understand what all this means for the future, and I can guarantee that there are scientists out there who just don't consider the ramifications of what they are doing. No joke, I am serious.
--
Death of the "standard" microprocessor? (Score:1)
hmmm (Score:1)
If you think you know what the hell is really going on you're probably full of shit.
FUD what you don't understand. (Score:2)
Do you really think that just because they're going to be very small, they're dangerous? The "ramifications" are that electrical engineering can be done cheaper and smaller.
Nano-technology in computers, what could it mean? (Score:1)
undergrad courses? (Score:1)
Re:But ... (Score:1)
Gray Goo (Score:2)
Today we may have harmless, no, make that highly benificial, self-construction pillars. But in a few hundred years or so we may have not so harmless gray goo that can reproduce it'self in most substances. Such a substance could have the potential to turn our world into a big mass of gray goo.
We must make sure we stop before our nanomachines can reproduce themselves in anything but highly exotic enviornments.
Re:Death of the "standard" microprocessor? (Score:2)
You have to wonder how suitable current circuit design (i mean in terms of the basic building blocks, i.e., binary logic gates and binary states) is for pushing speed barriers - I mean you lend yourself to easy duplication and brute-force speed, but I don't think it's the best schema in terms of fast computing - as maybe evidenced by the necessity for hardware specialization. But who knows, not like I know what i'm talking about.
SA
Nanotech is the key to immortality. (Score:1)
Imagine robots what can manually alter the synapses in your brain to code knowledge while you sleep. Or remove unpleasant memories from your mind.
Imagine never losing muscle mass because all of your muscles are stimulated into growth while you watch TV.
Remember the movie "Silent Rage"? Imagine healing as fast a John Kirby did. This is the promise of nanotech. I just hope I live long enough to see it.
This is only a tiny step in that direction, but it is a step nonetheless.
LK
Nano-logic synthesis (Score:3)
I don't think today's tools are up to it - at the very least, for modeling purposes, there will have to be a quantum-model-simulator like [H]SPICE (QSPICE anyone?
Place & route will be on a massive scale for random logic. Not only will the interconnect dwarf the effects of the nano-gates, but you'll have to model effects like quantum-tunneling & other bizarre features.
Tools will have to automatically provide circuitry with fault tolerance, since a cosmic ray blasting through a molecule-sized switch is going to be a catastrophic event...
I suspect that for large arrays of nano-components, there will be a lot of borrowing from the computations that crystallographers do, since they are used to deriving the gross characteristics of substances by mathematically extending "unit cells" ad infinitum.
A lot of the work of the tools will be to just figure out the "self-assembly" steps - do this to make THIS layer self-assemble, then do this to make THAT layer self-assemble, etc., w/o them interfering with each other.
If all the self-assembly steps are low-power, I wonder if it will be possible to finally make these logic circuits in a cube form? (Building up the cube layer-by-layer, instead of starting w/raw silicon wafer & eating layers away like we currently do).
There are so many things that become possible when this technology reaches some threshholds, that I suspect a lot of people "overload" and start tuning out the potential issues because their brains don't want to deal w/all the possible changes which might occur
Re:Death of the "standard" microprocessor? (Score:1)
When your PC is ready to be upgraded, you just add more CPUs to it. Not just doubling the MIPS or FLOPS a machine can perform but increasing it a thousand fold at a time. That is where I hope and think this will head.
LK
An Explanation for Homeopathy? (Score:1)
Re:Nanotech is the key to a living hell (Score:2)
Sure, one could say, I've earned the money to have nanobots put into my body, and it's my right to do so. I'm not going to argue that. But I don't think immortality should be for sale at any cost..I believe it upsets the balance of life and death, of renewal and decay..I don't want to live forever, anyway.."Death is not an end, but only a transition.." The body sleeps, the soul lives on.
peace,
Nano stuff (Score:2)
Re:FUD what you don't understand. (Score:2)
In addition to shrinking the size of the switch to atomic dimensions, the researchers also used a fabrication method called "self assembly," where the device actually self-forms, in comparison to conventional methods of transistor fabrication using lithography.
I am not an EE (I'm a ChemE), so I don't know exactly what goes into the "self assembly" process. I assume it a lot more complicated than simple crystallization that I have to worry about at work. I mean, the assembly has to be done with a certain precision and intelligence, right? Some sort of formation instruction needs to be added to the initial 'starter molecule.' If not, would it be possible to control how this molecule forms itself?
Hey, if I'm way off base on how these little guys are formed, then I would feel better knowing that. I won't hesitate to admit my limit of knowledge in this area. I just don't think that everyone who works in this area of research knows 100% exactly what they are doing either. If they did, it wouldn't really be research.
--
Re:Nanotech is the key to a living hell (Score:1)
I'm talking about allowing a rape victim to forget all of the horrible details and give her enough peace of mind to be able to enjoy making love again.
I'm talking about giving someone the ability to forget watching his mother get beheaded in a car accident.
>>Sure, one could say, I've earned the money to have nanobots put into my body, and it's my right to do so. I'm not going to argue that. But I don't think immortality should be for sale at any cost..I believe it upsets the balance of life and death, of renewal and decay..I don't want to live forever, anyway.."Death is not an end, but only a transition.." The body sleeps, the soul lives on.
Those are your beliefs, and I respect them, but maybe not everyone shares those beliefs. Maybe I don't think that 70 years here is enough for me. What if I want to make it 500 or so? Why should YOU or anyone else for that matter have the authority to tell me that I can't?
I too believe that there is a life after life, but I'd rather live this one to the maximum before I go on to the next one.
Why do people insist on romanticizing death? I've seen more dead people than I care to remember. I watched my mother die from a brain tumor, I saw the bullet hole in my father's head, I've seen dead children, I've seen dead adults, I've lost many friends and family members. Death isn't some great release from the horror of this world. Death is grim, death is bad, death is a horror itself. I don't know about you, but I'd like to delay that horror as long as possible.
LK
Re:Nano stuff (Score:1)
If you really want to know the whys and hows of this (or any) research technology, the unfortunate solution is to dig through the literature and read read read.
Hit your local library and check out this week's issue of Science--it's not only one of the most prestigious journals out there, it's one of the most readable and interesting.
Re:Mortality [was: '... a living hell'] (Score:1)
For any number of reasons that don't need to be brought up yet again, I disagree. As far as I can tell, when we die, we end.
But isn't that ok?
Why are we so afraid of death? People have a beginning and an end, and should be aware of that. I think that knowledge and acceptance of your own mortality makes you a better person. It makes you more appreciative of the time you have to live. It makes you care more about what is happening in the world, because it affects you, and you've only got so much time. It encourages you to go after your dreams rather than go for traditional "success", because if you only have a limited amount of time, why waste it on something you don't like doing?
I think the idea that the soul goes on is detrimental because it encourages people to dismiss reality in favor of an imagined reward that is cut off from our lives by the sharp division of death. Why live life to the fullest when what you "really" should be doing is preparing for eternal life once you're outta here?
On the other hand, maybe people would relax a bit more if our lifespans were extended to, say, 200 healthy years. Maybe things would slow down and people would think about the consequences of their actions more, and feel less pressure.
Maybe not. Hmmm.
Re:DRAM? Oh oh. (Score:2)
As much as I like Star Trek for stirring people to take an interest in the sciences, I could cry when they start taking Trek's rubber physics too seriously.
Re:Gray Goo (Score:1)
You said: "We must make sure we stop before our nanomachines can reproduce themselves in anything but highly exotic enviornments." What does that mean? I require a highly exotic environment to reproduce: enormous inputs of raw materials, some way to get rid of waste products, a certain temperature range, etc. etc.; it seems extremely unlikely that nanomachines could reproduce out of control, simply because they'd eventually run out of some limiting reagent. I suppose some things are readily available in large supply, but you can't make much from just seawater or just silicon (two very abundant substances, here on Earth).
Besides, how are all those nanites going to power themselves?
Re:Nanotech is the key to immortality. (Score:1)
Imagine robots that destroy the the circuits in your cpu rather than build them.
The possible misuse of nano-tech is as frightening as the possible benefits are exciting.
The new Nano-Picutre (Score:3)
" . "
Re:Gray Goo (Score:1)
You can't be too paranoid about discoveries that are really only serendipity. I'll admit that most turn out ok, but it only takes one mistake to unleash a new genie.
--
Re:Nanotech is the key to a living hell (Score:1)
And as for death..I don't see a natural death as horrible (of course, what constitutes a "natural" death is a debate considerably out of the scope of this thread)..I think it'd be more horrible to watch your friends and lovers age and die while you stay perfectly healthy..and how long could a body last until it became totally dependent on nanotech for survival, to the point where death would be instant should the nanobots be partially or totally removed?
peace,
Re:Gray Goo (Score:1)
As has been mentioned before, there are problems with the gray goo scenario. You said: "We must make sure we stop before our nanomachines can reproduce themselves in anything but highly exotic enviornments." What does that mean? I require a highly exotic environment to reproduce: enormous inputs of raw materials, some way to get rid of waste products, a certain temperature range, etc. etc.; it seems extremely unlikely that nanomachines could reproduce out of control, simply because they'd eventually run out of some limiting reagent. I suppose some things are readily available in large supply, but you can't make much from just seawater or just silicon (two very abundant substances, here on Earth).
In exotic I mean anything that you don't find very often. This could mean a place with lots of honest politicians for all I care. :-) The point is if nanomachines can reproduce in any enviornment there is a possibility of that enviornment being completely taken over untill no resources are left. Ouch!
Remember what happened to rabbits in Austrailia? They ate everything in sight at first untill they starved themselves. That virus that was released into the wild has kept them in check. But they still caused huge amounts of damage. Just imagine what havoc something that could "ate" carbon could cause... It would kill it'self eventually, but it would cause havoc in the proccess.
Besides, how are all those nanites going to power themselves?
Most likly by some sort of chemical reaction. Just like your average bacteria does. And bacteria sure do thrive don't they...
Use Bose-Einstein condensation and superposition (Score:1)
Re:Gray Goo (Score:1)
Actually I'm quite happy that our scientists found something that lined up on it's own like that. It sounds like a usefull proccess. Heck, I'd go send those scientists some congradulations on their discovery.
A few pillars lining up is harmless and probably usefull. The type of danger I'm warning about is completely different in nature. And something that is very far down the road.
I should have been more clear in my first post.
In case you're wondering I support nuclear power, genetic engineering and the research of artificial intelligence.
Re:The new Nano-Picutre (Score:1)
Re:Mortality [was: '... a living hell'] (Score:1)
I do see your point about "Why live life to the fullest,", that's one of my arguments against "cheap" immortality.
Peace,
Re:Self assembling nanostructures (Score:2)
Try reading Engines of Creation [foresight.org] by Eric Drexler. Then you'll know where Neal Stephenson got his material.
Or take a look at the website for Zyvex [zyvex.com], "the first molecular nanotechnology development company".
cash in nano economy (Score:1)
Re:Nano stuff (Score:1)
Re:Nanotech is the key to a living hell (Score:2)
Re:An Explanation for Homeopathy? (Score:2)
I guess you're suggesting that the reason that an absurdly low concentration of a substance can supposedly have some sort of medical effect is that the molecules of the substance are breeding more of themselves through some sort of "self-assembly" process. Don't you think that a chemist would notice if this was going on? "Huh, I mixed in a small amount of X into Y, but now the concentration of X has gone up." This kind of thing is pretty easy to measure these days.
Re:Mortality [was: '... a living hell'] (Score:2)
After seeing death, I know that I don't want it to happen to me.
I don't want my body to lie in wormy earth and decompose. I know that I can't stop it from happening, but at the same time I don't WANT it to happen. I don't see a problem with that.
>>I think the idea that the soul goes on is detrimental because it encourages people to dismiss reality in favor of an imagined reward that is cut off from our lives by the sharp division of death.
I find that my beliefe in an afterlife is more dependant upon the need for punishment than the need for a reward. I'll explain, I don't find it acceptable to think that someone like Adolph Hitler will not face some manner of punishment in the next life while someone like Mother Teresa (No I'm not Catholic) will not be rewarded.
>>On the other hand, maybe people would relax a bit more if our lifespans were extended to, say, 200 healthy years. Maybe things would slow down and people would think about the consequences of their actions more, and feel less pressure.
This is not my point, when it's possible if I'm still alive and can afford to do so I'd jump at the chance.
LK
Re:Nano-logic synthesis (Score:2)
The self-assembly process isn't understood yet, from what I gather from the article, and it may not be possible to adapt it to patterns more complicated than an array of round pillars - but if it is, you'll get something like a huge matrix of standard blocks. If you figure out the interconnects correctly so they'll self-align, you'll get something which can be programmed by an extension of today's FPGA techniques... either permanently with a laser probe or by injecting serial data streams into the array.
There have been some interesting papers published (sorry, can't find the URL now) about evolutionary programming of FPGA's... that may also be applicable.
Finally, they recently figured out how to make vertical transistors (unlike the horizontal ones used today) which can be stacked in 3 dimensions. So I think we'll see logic and memory chips using these principles in a relatively short time - 5 or 10 years is my guess.
Re:Nano stuff (Score:1)
Nanosystems : Molecular Machinery, Manufacturing and Computation
by E. Drexler
It should be technical enough.
And the UNSWs Semiconductor Nanofabrication Facility has a nice site.
Alien technology (Score:1)
Re:FUD what you don't understand. (Score:3)
Everything I'm going to say here I got from Eric K. Drexler's "Engines of Creation" (A very good book IMHO), and my undergraduate biochemistry degree. Nothing is particularly inaccessible to "the general public", in fact Engines of Creation is VERY readable indeed. Yet the majority of people that say things about nanotechnology seem not to have even read this book (and EKD is _THE_ guy who thought up the whole nanotech field!!!)
OK. Enough bull$hit, etc.
Self-Assembly is almost _exactly_ like crystallisation. Essentially, you have a number of components that are complicated enough to only fit together in one configuration - and set things up so that the crystallised configuration has better energy characteristics than the uncrystallised configuration. I suppose one difference is that you don't end up with a single crystal with conceptually infinite dimensions, but instead with a number of discrete entities.
Some simple (and _NATURAL_) examples of self-assembly:
(1) Bilipid layers will spontaneously self-assemble from phospholipids. The reason is this: Phospholipids have a highly hydrophilic (water-attracted) "heads" at one end, and a highly hydrophobic (water-repellant) "tail" at the other (this is actually a fatty acid tail). When a sufficient concentration of these phospholipids are brought together, they tend to clump with the tails pointing inwards and the heads pointing outwards, towards the water. In this manner, they form little spheres. Occasionally, they will also clump in a double layer, with one layer consisting of phospholipids oriented with the heads pointing outwards, and the other layer oriented with the heads pointing INWARDS - you then get a flat sheet which often folds into a hollow sphere, that contains water in the middle.
This process can be made to occur quite easily - yet each and every one of our cells contains a phospholipid bilayer that keeps it as a discrete entity!
(2) Macrophages. These are viruses that prey on bacteria (I suppose as such we should be happy about them!). They are also very cool - after infecting a bacteria, they get it to produce a whole bunch of protein components (as well as a nucleic acid strand). These components SPONTANEOUSLY self-assemble into new macrophages - and these macrophages have quite a complicated structure (they look like eye-droppers with legs).
In both cases, there is absolutely no intelligence and/or control in the actual assembly process. The components naturally assemble by virtue of their shape.
I'm assuming that it's a similar process that is occuring in the case of the switch - each component is fabricated so as to assemble in a particular way. When they are mixed together, they just - assemble!
Another thing that a lot of people seem to be talking about / worried about is the concept of grey goo. I'm not sure whether this concept was invented by EKD or not, but he certainly talks about it.
The concept arose in the context of Von-Neumann machines (sorry if I spelt it wrongly!). These conceptual machines were designed to repclicate themselves. Possible applications of such machines would be as miners on remote planets -send out a Von-Neumann machine, which finds a particular quantity of Iron, replicates itself twice, then comes back to Earth. Each child machine does the same thing, ad infinatum....
The problem here is that such machines could replicate incorrectly (hey, it happens on Earth - we're Von-Neumann machines, and mutations occur quite frequently....it's part of a process called Evolution). Say a Von-Neumann machine was created that "forgot" that Earth was the mother planet, and began finding Iron and replicating ON EARTH....These machines would have been designed to find Iron anywhere they could....I'm sure you begin to see the possible problems here.
Nanomachines could potentially be made as Von-Neumann machines. I won't go into the whole purpose-of-nanomachines-as-Von-Neumann-machines thing, because EKD covers this _VERY_ well.
Grey goo is what happens when self-replicating nanomachines go "out of control", and chew up every available food source (like we're doing on Earth at the moment). Remember that, just as animals on Earth have evolved to get the most of just about any Carbon source, so too (potentially) could sufficiently complicated Von-Neumann machines. We (among other things) are Carbon sources.
So, yes, Grey goo is a BIG potential problem that needs to be addressed very carefully before we start to make self-replicating nanomachines.
Self-assembly, though, is an entirely different thing, one with a lot less inherent danger mainly because machines assemble out of materials that WE provide, and then can not replicate themselves.
I also don't want to sound too much like a scare-mongerer. Nanotechnology in a sufficiently advanced form could provide many benefits to humans - from feeding the world's masses, to space travel, to rapid assembly of products, to extension of life span (possibly indefinitely). Again, these topics are very well covered in EKD's book so I won't go into them too much.
-Shane Stephens
Re:Nano stuff (Score:1)
If you're a trained scientist, go and read the journal article. There really isn't any point in having more detail in what's effectively a press release. You either get the 30,000 feet overview, or you go and read the journal.
If, as you say, you only get your news from the web, go to the professor's web site. They'll usually have something there about what they're working on in much greater detail than the article you just read, and will often have journal references to what they've published. The reason that these things are so short are almost never grant/secrecy related. They're because the press media has a very short attention span for technical articles that don't have the words "black hole," "genetically modified," or "Y2K" in them.
* mild mannered physics grad student by day *
Re:Nanotech is the key to immortality. (Score:1)
Interesting as this is I wouldn't want it to happen. Imagine if this were all really to happen: if something bad were to happen to you, you'd simply forget it; if you wanted to learn something you could do it overnight; what you do to your body would have little consequence, because it would repair itself very quickly.
When does all this get boring? What becomes of all the challenges? Life this way is too easy and would certainly spawn nihilism like we've never known it before, but then there'd probably also be nanites to keep us artificially sane. Ease of life is not the ultimate goal, if you ask me. We will always need to fight a few battles, because that is what brings a meaning to our lives. Take Bill Gates, for instance; he could just sit there in his mountains of money and despair, because now he can have anything he wants without having to work for it... but he doesn't, no, he is still fighting, because that's what defines him and that's a very large part of human nature in general.
You may have your Brave New World but I shall pass. Lobotomy has more than one form.
Re:Nanotech is the key to immortality. (Score:2)
As I said before, I'm talking about truly traumatic experiences. A women can forget enough of the gruesome details of a rape to be able to enjoy making love again. Someone could forget the images of watching his friend or family member decapitated in a car accident so that s/he can live an otherwise normal life.
>>When does all this get boring? What becomes of all the challenges?
We then find OTHER challenges. Even though we can all obtain knowledge that we as a species have, there is always something more to learn. We must find THAT knowledge. There will always be more to learn and explore. This would free us to do so.
Need a liver transplant? No problem, go to sleep and have your rebuilt. Congenital heart defect? No problem when you're baby is a week old it will be repaired.
>>Take Bill Gates, for instance; he could just sit there in his mountains of money and despair, because now he can have anything he wants without having to work for it.
He has already "worked" for it. He was smart, he was ruthless, he was greedy and he was lucky. As much as I despise him, he has earned the money he should be able to get anything he can afford.
>>You may have your Brave New World but I shall pass. Lobotomy has more than one form.
You apparantly never read Brave New World. What I am talking about is the possibility for true equality for all people.
This is the next step in our evolution. We've reached the point where we no longer need to adapt to the environment to survive. We just hit an evolutionary brick wall, this is the way to break through it. I just hope that I live long enough to see it.
LK
Re:Nano stuff (Score:1)
Seriously, I can relate--I somehow fell into sysadmin after many years of organic chemistry. Seeing stuff like this whets my interest, and I wish I could get more details, but I've accepted that online information is generally crap. (exceptions, of course, abound)
On that beer note, now I have to go figure out a recipe for a Steam beer. I'm having definite flashbacks to a certain User Friendly cartoon here...
Re:Nano-logic synthesis (Score:2)
Cool - do you have a reference with a general description of the technique they used to make these vertical transistors?
Re:Nano-logic synthesis (Score:1)
It would be very difficult to disperse the heat released during computation if the surface area to volume ratio were that of a cube. The whole thing would need to be permeated with fine capillaries carrying fluid coolant off to a heat exchanger. If miniaturisation is really an issue, I expect it would still be easier to manufacture separate wafers and assemble them around some sort of cooling scaffold.
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Oh Please! (Score:1)
You sound like some B sci-fi hero. What could possibly have led you to believe that there is anything sacred about a 70 year life span? Was 30 sacred, 20... Is 80 too long, 100, 150?
The bottom line is that there is an awful lot more of the universe than I can explore in 70 years. I couldn't run out of new experiences and frontiers in 10,000. Especially if I get to do it with 100 billion of my closest friends and a significant fraction of the speed of light.
Use some imagination. History hasn't even begun yet.
More on self-assembly (Score:1)
Rick Wagner
U of Mich - Dept of Chem Eng
Re:FUD what you don't understand. (Score:1)
Nano Nano (Score:1)
Some related fiction.. (Score:1)
I'd guess this is probably the classic story, mixes self-assembly _and_ crystallization and I'd better not tell you any more or I'll give it away.
Checking the name of the book I found a relevant url.. http://www.sigmaxi.org/amsci/Issues/Sciobs96/Scio
The name of this substance somehow strikes the soul harder than something called "gray goo" for me anyway.. which sounds so silly maybe it should be renamed. Gray Nemesis? Another oldie.. this on what happens when the goo gets smart: Greg Bear, Blood Music.
Also another good book if you like nano and society. Beggars and Choosers, by Nancy Kress. A good read.
Matt