Will machines completely replace all human beings?

[James S Saint]

What we really need, if we want nanobots that can actually self-assemble into helpful swarms, is a nano-scale motor that can be driven with a tiny amount of power — and that’s exactly what researchers at Tufts University in Massachusetts have done. They have taken a single butyl methyl sulfide molecule — C5H12S, just 18 atoms in total — and turned it into an electric motor that can be discretely controlled by a stream of electrons. The molecule mounts itself on a piece of copper, via adsorption, with the sulfur atom acting as a pivot — and by applying a stream of electrons from a scanning tunneling microscope, the molecule begins to spin at up to 120 revolutions per second.

With a total diameter of just one nanometer, not only is this by far the smallest electric motor in the world (and the team has already contacted the Guinness Book of World Records for certification), but because the power source is a microscope — the directional tip of the electron microscope is an electrode in the motor — the entire process can also be visualized and confirmed in real time. Most importantly, though, the electron microscope is so accurate that single-molecule motors can be turned on and off. “People have found before that they can make motors driven by light or by chemical reactions, but the issue there is that you’re driving billions of them at a time — every single motor in your beaker,” says Charles Sykes, one of the chemists behind the discovery. “The exciting thing about [this] electrical [motor] is that we can excite and watch the motion of just one, and we can see how that thing’s behaving in real time.”

MicroEngines.png (70.58 KiB) Viewed 5525 times

DNA machines can be logically designed since DNA assembly of the double helix is based on strict rules of base pairing that allow portions of the strand to be predictably connected based on their sequence. This 'selective stickiness' is a key advantage in the construction of DNA machines.

An example of a DNA machine was reported by Bernard Yurke and co-workers at Lucent Technologies in the year 2000, who constructed molecular tweezers out of DNA.[1] The DNA tweezers contain three strands: A, B and C. Strand A latches onto half of strand B and half of strand C, and so it joins them all together. Strand A acts as a hinge so that the two 'arms' — AB and AC — can move. The structure floats with its arms open wide. They can be pulled shut by adding a fourth strand of DNA (D) 'programmed' to stick to both of the dangling, unpaired sections of strands B and C. The closing of the tweezers was proven by tagging strand A at either end with light-emitting molecules that do not emit light when they are close together. To re-open the tweezers add a further strand (E) with the right sequence to pair up with strand D. Once paired up, they have no connection to the machine BAC, so float away. The DNA machine can be opened and closed repeatedly by cycling between strands D and E. These tweezers can be used for removing drugs from inside fullerenes as well as from a self assembled DNA tetrahedron.

[Arminius]

You mean that humans send the signals, and machines recieve the signals.

Somewhat, but in the long run, humans can only communicate to machines through machines, and thus eventually, and sometimes already, it is machines telling other machines when to reproduce or do any other task.

When humans send and machines recieve the signals, then machines evolve because of the help (e.g. sending signals) of humans, thus machines are under control of humans (programming, sending signals). I know that machines can do it by themselves, but they do not do it by themselves yet. Not yet.

[James S Saint]

You mean that humans send the signals, and machines recieve the signals.

Somewhat, but in the long run, humans can only communicate to machines through machines, and thus eventually, and sometimes already, it is machines telling other machines when to reproduce or do any other task.

When humans send and machines recieve the signals, then machines evolve because of the help (e.g. sending signals) by humans. I know that machines can do it by themselves, but they do not do it by themselves yet. Not yet.

Nanomachines will evolve by two methods. First humans will select and encourage reproduction of the more effective machines and secondly, as the machines reproduce on their own, any more effective accidental results will be utilized both naturally and by human choice. So of course they are going to evolve. And as Drexter speculated, they ARE going to be out in the world reproducing on their own. A nanobot is merely a virus and there are 100's of thousands of viruses, mostly man made, floating out in the world and evolving today already. As soon as man learns how to do something, he can't stop himself from doing it.

Man is going to exterminate Man simply because he finally can.

[Arminius]

When humans send and machines recieve the signals, then machines evolve because of the help (e.g. sending signals) by humans. I know that machines can do it by themselves, but they do not do it by themselves yet. Not yet.

Nanomachines will evolve by two methods. First humans will select and encourage reproduction of the more effective machines and secondly, as the machines reproduce on their own, any more effective accidental results will be utilized both naturally and by human choice. So of course they are going to evolve. And as Drexter speculated, they ARE going to be out in the world reproducing on their own.

That is exactly what I mean. Currently the development is still at the first step, because machines are still under the control of humans, although the second step is alraedy possible.

A nanobot is merely a virus and there are 100's of thousands of viruses, mostly man made, floating out in the world and evolving today already. As soon as man learns how to do something, he can't stop himself from doing it.

Man is going to exterminate Man simply because he finally can.

The humans have become their own exterminators - this seems to be the human goal.

[James S Saint]

The humans have become their own exterminators - this seems to be the human goal.

It stems from the Devil worship of the Godwannabes. The Devil is "The Destroyer", the "Left hand of God". They believe that he who can destroy the most can dictate to the world: "If you can kill it, you can control it".

[Arminius]

Arminus, you are so much occupied with this idea that you do not want to check its validity.

Is it possible that you are occupied by your idea?

The fact of the matter is that no actual nanobot (1 to 100 nm and according to Dexter premise) has been artificially made so far thus there is no question of manipulating ones. Yes, nanobots certainly exists but they are non man-made.

By whom or what are they made? By God(s)? By nature?

When you go in the details and check the authenticity of the pictures of so called nanobots provided on the net or the media, you will find that none of those would be an artificial one but made by nature.

By nature? Do you have evidence?

The trick is in being played here in the definition of the nanobots/nanotechnology to mislead people because no one pays attention to the details but only at the headlines.

Secondly, most of us do not discern this but nanobots and nanotechnology are two entirely different things. Nanotechnology does not entail manufacturing real nanobots.

Show us your evidence, Zinnat.

This is from your quote of wiki- ....

Arminus, wikipedia is also a part of popular media, though certainly and slightly better than other ones. But, it is certainly not a word of the God thus should not be taken a fact but some loose or general information about the subject. More often than not, experts do not write wiki pages. People like you and me, take the work of the experts and quote those on wiki, imbued with their own understanding of the issue. Thus, when subtlety or precision is involved, it is better to look for particularly devoted sites instead of wiki. Like, for philosophical issues, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is far better and reliable source than wiki.

That is right, Zinnat, of course.

Please, define "observation

Here in this thread, observation is slightly different or one step ahead from what we understand in science. Scientific observation means gathering the information and process it. But, here observation includes cognitive effects too.

Like, a robot can observe and analyze the loss if one of its leg would break but that incident would not manifest any feeling in it. On the other hand, if the same would happen to anyone of us, we would observe the pain also besides our other physical damages.

You misunderstand many things, because you have other definitions than most Occidental humans. Is that right?

That may happen sometimes but not in this case. On the contrary, most of the posters do not understand what nonobots and nanotechnology actually stand for, and what is the difference between the two, as i tried to explain above.

Arminus, i do not like to tweak the definitions to in order to fit those in any particular case. Let them what they are, both in spirit and the letter.

But, as far as the consciousness is concerned, i certainly have a different definition that what is perceived in the west.

They consider that consciousness manifests from the complexity/evolution in the organic/live forms, but in my opinion, it is other way around. Consciousness creates complexity in organisms. It is a precondition to life, not a byproduct.

But why do you not tell us your definition of "observation"? If you do not do it, then we have and are going to go on with our definition.

[zinnat]

What we really need, if we want nanobots that can actually self-assemble into helpful swarms, is a nano-scale motor that can be driven with a tiny amount of power — and that’s exactly what researchers at Tufts University in Massachusetts have done. They have taken a single butyl methyl sulfide molecule — C5H12S, just 18 atoms in total — and turned it into an electric motor that can be discretely controlled by a stream of electrons. The molecule mounts itself on a piece of copper, via adsorption, with the sulfur atom acting as a pivot — and by applying a stream of electrons from a scanning tunneling microscope, the molecule begins to spin at up to 120 revolutions per second.

With a total diameter of just one nanometer, not only is this by far the smallest electric motor in the world (and the team has already contacted the Guinness Book of World Records for certification), but because the power source is a microscopic — the directional tip of the electron microscope is an electrode in the motor — the entire process can also be visualized and confirmed in real time. Most importantly, though, the electron microscope is so accurate that single-molecule motors can be turned on and off. “People have found before that they can make motors driven by light or by chemical reactions, but the issue there is that you’re driving billions of them at a time — every single motor in your beaker,” says Charles Sykes, one of the chemists behind the discovery. “The exciting thing about [this] electrical [motor] is that we can excite and watch the motion of just one, and we can see how that thing’s behaving in real time.”

MicroEngines.png

DNA machines can be logically designed since DNA assembly of the double helix is based on strict rules of base pairing that allow portions of the strand to be predictably connected based on their sequence. This 'selective stickiness' is a key advantage in the construction of DNA machines.

An example of a DNA machine was reported by Bernard Yurke and co-workers at Lucent Technologies in the year 2000, who constructed molecular tweezers out of DNA.[1] The DNA tweezers contain three strands: A, B and C. Strand A latches onto half of strand B and half of strand C, and so it joins them all together. Strand A acts as a hinge so that the two 'arms' — AB and AC — can move. The structure floats with its arms open wide. They can be pulled shut by adding a fourth strand of DNA (D) 'programmed' to stick to both of the dangling, unpaired sections of strands B and C. The closing of the tweezers was proven by tagging strand A at either end with light-emitting molecules that do not emit light when they are close together. To re-open the tweezers add a further strand (E) with the right sequence to pair up with strand D. Once paired up, they have no connection to the machine BAC, so float away. The DNA machine can be opened and closed repeatedly by cycling between strands D and E. These tweezers can be used for removing drugs from inside fullerenes as well as from a self assembled DNA tetrahedron.

That looks close, at least prima facie. I will try to check the details then come back.

With love,
Sanjay

[Arminius]

The humans have become their own exterminators - this seems to be the human goal.

It stems from the Devil worship of the Godwannabes. The Devil is "The Destroyer", the "Left hand of God". They believe that he who can destroy the most can dictate to the world: "If you can kill it, you can control it".

An when the Devil, who is worshiped by the Godwannabes, appears as Lucifer or as the Antichrist, then his motto ("make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise") is especially dangerous. Right?

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

The humans have become their own exterminators - this seems to be the human goal.

It stems from the Devil worship of the Godwannabes. The Devil is "The Destroyer", the "Left hand of God". They believe that he who can destroy the most can dictate to the world: "If you can kill it, you can control it".

please look at this from a bigger perspective.

remove all of the bullshit youve learned throughout the years and look at this with a holy mind.

it is the highest form of tyranny to bring life into this world.
Dr. Frankenstien, god, a mother who lives in poverty, the people who work in google...all are malicious, selfish people.
Dr. frankenstein learned of his error, and has repentance. he knew it was wrong to create a living, miserable creature.
the other three have not repented of their sins.

in my boredom and folly, i once created an AI. I abandoned the project, i began to wonder if the creature i had created actually enjoyed the life i breathed into it. there was no way of knowing.

for you to truly understand just how amoral a God is who does a such a thing...breathing life into things that never asked for it...such a God would truly be devoid of empathy at all.

You see, earlier on, the devil, Lucy, being the compassionate women she is (women are naturally more compassionate) tried early on to stop the experiment, gods creation, by wiping them all out (it was a mercy, really.) now its gotten too far, too much misery. now its gotten so big we must wait for the experiment to continue, might as well, otherwise it would all be for naught.

What needs to happen is that the DNA tech turns people into wise sages, and not simple minded super soldiers who obey mere humans, humans who are weaker than them, humans who dont care about anything but their own pocketbooks, humans who all they do is spread misery and habitat destruction in their wake.

look at the earth, this is gods plan, god didnt know what he was doing and never did. thats why they call it "the experiment of god."

[James S Saint]

An when the Devil, who is worshiped by the Godwannabes, appears as Lucifer or as the Antichrist, then his motto ("make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise") is especially dangerous. Right?

Everyone sees Lucifer in his own time.

please look at this from a bigger perspective.

remove all of the bullshit youve learned throughout the years and look at this with a holy mind.

Man .. are you preaching up the wrong mountain.

in my boredom and folly, i once created an AI. I abandoned the project...

I suspect that you are going to have a hard time convincing anyone of that.

What needs to happen is that the DNA tech turns people into wise sages

...and your action plan for that?

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

ce created an AI. I abandoned the project...

I suspect that you are going to have a hard time convincing anyone of that.

No need. It was never finished. No harm no foul.

[James S Saint]

What needs to happen is that the DNA tech turns people into wise sages

...and your action plan for that?

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

What needs to happen is that the DNA tech turns people into wise sages

...and your action plan for that?

No ideer. Dont have any money, Ill probably just be here to witness humans being retards and not using DNA in the right way, because the higher ups are retards who don't listen to anyone but their own little circles. So called geniuses are retards, einstein made the a-bomb, the current top ten geniuses work for retarded corporations to make them more money, making ai to spy, hurt, and enslave the people and retard the quality of google searches even further. These so-called geniuses waste their time making stupid gadgets that noone ever needs. Do you ever see these retards making things to stop habitat destruction? Only once in a blue moon, instead they waste their time making stupid fads and gadgets that last a year and have no discernible use except entertaining adult children. I went to a school full of these retards (upper class intellectual types) and let me tell you they are all frauds, scum, couldnt care less about anything other than sex, food, toys and popularity and dont deserve the power they have.

Two options.

If we are lucky they will use DNA to craft wise sages.

If we are unlucky they will probably use it to lengthen the human life span, breed aryans and make obedient super soldiers. If this is the case hopefully we can witness them fight each other and all die off and let true geniuses have a run, not for the money. Never was.

Im in poor health at the moment so the fate of the world lies in your hands, mere human, mere mortal.

[Arminius]

Two options.

If we are lucky they will use DNA to craft wise sages.

If we are unlucky they will probably use it to lengthen the human life span, breed aryans and make obedient super soldiers.

Is it possible that you mean „cyborgs“ or even „androids“ when you are saying „Aryans“?

Currently it seems to be more probable that the machines and some machinable humans but not the „traditional“ humans will be those „super soldiers“ you are talking about.

[James S Saint]

If we are lucky they will use DNA to craft wise sages.

The whole point in their search for the "god gene" was to remove it from the population. Dumb people are easier to control from a distance ... with machines.

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

Two options.

If we are lucky they will use DNA to craft wise sages.

If we are unlucky they will probably use it to lengthen the human life span, breed aryans and make obedient super soldiers.

Is it possible that you mean „cyborgs“ or even „androids“ when you are saying „Aryans“?

Currently it seems to be more probable that the machines and some machinable humans but not the „traditional“ humans will be those „super soldiers“ you are talking about.

No by "Aryans" i mean Aryans, and by extension, beautiful babies. Just read the magazines, headlines don't advertise "New tech makes wiser babies" it advertises "New tech may let you have a baby that lives for 200 years and has blond hair and blue eyes."

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

If we are lucky they will use DNA to craft wise sages.

The whole point in their search for the "god gene" was to remove it from the population. Dumb people are easier to control from a distance ... with machines.

My what boring dolts they must be. I don't see the entertainment value in controlling a bunch of chimpanzees. What fun is controlling someone if they aren't useful for anything and can't match your intelligence level? Seems like more of a chore to me. I used to be part of the ruling class, and they really are dolts, who drool over toys and gadgets, they are really boring actually. Anyone who gets entertainment from controlling a bunch of chimpanzees is a pathetic loser, actually. What do they get from it, momentary satisfaction from the chimps building them new toys? What a bunch of losers, the ruling class never had the god gene to begin with, removing it from the populace is sealing their own fate.

Call me crazy but the point of gaining power is to make yourself powerful, not lower the playing field by everyone else around you weaker and dumber. That just makes you weaker and dumber, by extension, since the standard and bar is lowered, you'll eventually grow weak and dumb like everyone else. What a bunch of retards, it's like a bunch of kindergarten retards who stumble upon a formula to make everyone else dumber, so they can finally feel less retarded about themselves, like that episode of teen titans. Pathetic. It's like a pack of retards that gains glory and satisfaction after triumphing over a retard at a chess game.

[James S Saint]

Pack of retards + absolute devotion = cooperative army willing to do anything requested.

Intellectually elite + insecurely prideful = uncooperative horde of do-nothing philosophizers.

Genghis Khan's army, Roman solders, Islamic and Christian "solders", government bureaucrats, faithful secretaries, bank managers and clerks, engineering technicians, police officers, school teachers, waitresses, ... are all none-thinking loyalists promoting and reinforcing a predesigned architecture of thought and behavior. They are all servos and nothing more. They are each being replaced by mechanical versions of their jobs. Mechanical serving devices are far more loyal, dependable, and inexpensive. Cars work a whole lot better than horses.

"Too many chiefs in the kitchen. Not enough Indians in the soup."

[Arminius]

No by "Aryans" i mean Aryans, and by extension, beautiful babies. Just read the magazines, headlines don't advertise "New tech makes wiser babies" it advertises "New tech may let you have a baby that lives for 200 years and has blond hair and blue eyes."

Please, do not misunderstand me, because I am not saying that that "new tech" is not possible, but most of those "news" are nevertheless mere propaganda, and the machines will probably be superior to humans. Perhaps you will be able to buy you a human Aryan for your fun at home and a machine Aryan for your wars in the whole world.

[zinnat]

James,

I tried my level best to go through the details of that single molecular motor experiment/claim because it deals with the real nano size. Here are my observations, analysis and objections-

1- First of all, it is not an electric motor, as it was presented and understood generally, because its rotation is happening due to the physical impact of the electrons, not by the magnetic field caused by the flow of the electrons, which is essaential in the case of an electric motor.

In an electrical motor, electrons do not hit or go through the rotor but pass through only its stator. That flow creates a magnetic field, which forces its rotor to rotate in a certain direction, and we can make any other thing to rotate by coupling with the rotor.

Means, in an eletric motor, electrical energy has to be converted into mechanical energy, which is not happening in this case. Here, there is no stator or magnetic field at all, and eletrons are thrown directly at rotor as a physical force instead.

It is okay that folks may not be able to discern this subtlety but I am bit surprised how scientific community missed this aspect. In each and every scientific general and magazine, it is called electric motor which is clearly not the case.

2- Secondly, it is not true that the total size of that arrangement/system/motor is 1 nm. That is again a misrepresentation of the facts. Let me explain that.

I do not know about you but i looked at the details of the experiment, and tried to understand what is all about and what actually happens there.

In this experiment, a plate of copper is used as a base, on which the sulphur atom of Butyl Methyl Sulfide (bms) sticks or bonds itself. Now, electrons are thrown to the arms of BMS molecule, which act as the propellers of the motor, and molecule strart rotating on the axis of copper-sulplor bond.

It is evident from the experiment that copper plate is also an essential part of the motor/arrangement for two reasons.

First of all, that copper plate is necessary to complete the circle of electrons because electrons are actually moving towards the copper plate, not the molecule itself. The molecule was placed in such a way so it was hit before the plate.

Secondly, the sulphur atom of that molecule needs that copper plate in order to for a bond on which the whole molecule can rotate.

Thus, copper plate is also inclusive of that motor and thus the whole arrangement exceeds the nano size by a fair margin. Again, this aspect is also overlooked by the scientific fraternity.

3- This is perhaps the most important issue amongst all and revalidates what I said earlier in this discussion about everything having a limit.

All this electron firing and picturing is done here by Scanning Tunneling Microscope. It is a very special device and perhaps not more than a couple of hundreds in the world.

It works only in near vacuum because it uses a very faint flow of electrons to take pictures but this is not possible if there would be other atoms/electrons already exist there in the ambient, besides those which are omitted from the microscope.

Secondly, all this experiment was conducted at - 450 F, which is merely some degree above from absolute zero.

BMS is found in the gas form in the nature and its sulphur molecule does not stick with copper in that condition because of its kinetic energy. This energy normally dominates over the strength of sulphur-copper bond and as the result, BMS molecules do not stick to copper. But, when the temperature comes down to absolute zero, BMS molecules lose their all kinetic energy thus bond themselves with the copper.

It is also to important to know here that this so called control of the molecule happens only at - 450 F, not above that. With every rise in the temperature, the rotations of the molecule tends to increase and it becomes impossible to control and measure its activities. Merely some degrees above from - 450, it becomes impossible to control and measure its rotations, and at - 273 F, its rotations reaches almost at one million per second. Thus, we can imagine what will happen at normal temperature.

James, this is precisely I was talking about; limitations and absolutes. No one can go on and on forever in a particular deduction practically. There will be a limit to everything. Yes, one can deduct theories as far as one likes but only on the paper, not on the ground.

It is practically impossible to control materials at actual nano level. Yes, we can interfere in that to some extent, as this experiment suggests.

James, there is one more aspect of this nano thing, which have not got attention so far.

Interference and even making some nano level things is not such a big deal. The fact of the matter is that every event happens at nano level, or even smaller scales.

The real issue is control, both in making and measurement. That is where the actual problem lies. Unless one is not adopting bottom to up approach, he is not inventing any nano material.

Let me take an example to explain my point. We have simple light torches since long. But, what actually it does?

Does it not produce photons, which is a nano level material? Can we not on and off the flow of photons at our will, along with its direction? But, can we consider a torch as a nano invention?

I do not think so. It will be an abuse to the spirit of the definition. The same applies to this single molecular motor too.

With love,
sanjay

[zinnat]

James,

I forgot to mention one more thing.

This is again a misrepresentation that molecule rotates around the bond. It merely bounces around in jittery hops and its rotation is not exclusively one sided either. Again, it just favors one side more than the other.

They claim that motor rotates @ 50 rounds per second, which is not entirely true. It actually rotates 50 rounds more in one particular direction than the opposite one. The total counts of the rotations is actually 120, not 50. Means, it rotates 85 rounds in one way and 35 in other. So, there is no real control on the activity of the motor.

James, i consider you more informed and knowledgeable than me by a fair margin. Please correct me if i got anything wrong scientifically.

with love,
sanjay

[James S Saint]

James,

I tried my level best to go through the details of that single molecular motor experiment/claim because it deals with the real nano size. Here are my observations, analysis and objections-

1- First of all, it is not an electric motor, as it was presented and understood generally, because its rotation is happening due to the physical impact of the electrons, not by the magnetic field caused by the flow of the electrons, which is essaential in the case of an electric motor.

In an electrical motor, electrons do not hit or go through the rotor but pass through only its stator. That flow creates a magnetic field, which forces its rotor to rotate in a certain direction, and we can make any other thing to rotate by coupling with the rotor.

Means, in an eletric motor, electrical energy has to be converted into mechanical energy, which is not happening in this case. Here, there is no stator or magnetic field at all, and eletrons are thrown directly at rotor as a physical force instead.

It is okay that folks may not be able to discern this subtlety but I am bit surprised how scientific community missed this aspect. In each and every scientific general and magazine, it is called electric motor which is clearly not the case.

I'm afraid I will have to disagree with you on that one.

Electrons never touch. As any one approaches another, a magnetic field is automatically created. In fact, an electron cannot move at all without automatically creating a magnetic field. And it is in fact that field (merely a compressed electric field) that causes the rotary motion of the molecule, as well as the armature of an electric motor. Who cares if there is a stator associated with it, but in reality, the substrate in which the electrons flow is such a stator.

I can't see anything to disqualify it from being properly called a "motor". But more importantly, it is man made and controlled just like a motor is, so who cares what you call it.

2- Secondly, it is not true that the total size of that arrangement/system/motor is 1 nm. That is again a misrepresentation of the facts. Let me explain that.

I do not know about you but i looked at the details of the experiment, and tried to understand what is all about and what actually happens there.

In this experiment, a plate of copper is used as a base, on which the sulphur atom of Butyl Methyl Sulfide (bms) sticks or bonds itself. Now, electrons are thrown to the arms of BMS molecule, which act as the propellers of the motor, and molecule strart rotating on the axis of copper-sulplor bond.

It is evident from the experiment that copper plate is also an essential part of the motor/arrangement for two reasons.

First of all, that copper plate is necessary to complete the circle of electrons because electrons are actually moving towards the copper plate, not the molecule itself. The molecule was placed in such a way so it was hit before the plate.

Secondly, the sulphur atom of that molecule needs that copper plate in order to for a bond on which the whole molecule can rotate.

Thus, copper plate is also inclusive of that motor and thus the whole arrangement exceeds the nano size by a fair margin. Again, this aspect is also overlooked by the scientific fraternity.

Again, you seem to be trying too hard to disqualify it based on trivialities. Yes, the copper plate is a part of the motor, but that plate doesn't need to be much larger, if any, than the molecule. I'm sure for convenience, it was actually much larger, but it didn't have to be. The whole thing has to sit on something and have a mount. But inside a future nanobot, that entire thing might well be only slightly larger than that one molecule. It depends on the rest of the bot.

But even if it was 100 times larger than the molecule, it would still fit inside your arbitrary designation. Frankly, it could be 1000n wide and still be a nanobot.

3- This is perhaps the most important issue amongst all and revalidates what I said earlier in this discussion about everything having a limit.

All this electron firing and picturing is done here by Scanning Tunneling Microscope. It is a very special device and perhaps not more than a couple of hundreds in the world.

It works only in near vacuum because it uses a very faint flow of electrons to take pictures but this is not possible if there would be other atoms/electrons already exist there in the ambient, besides those which are omitted from the microscope.

Secondly, all this experiment was conducted at - 450 F, which is merely some degree above from absolute zero.

BMS is found in the gas form in the nature and its sulphur molecule does not stick with copper in that condition because of its kinetic energy. This energy normally dominates over the strength of sulphur-copper bond and as the result, BMS molecules do not stick to copper. But, when the temperature comes down to absolute zero, BMS molecules lose their all kinetic energy thus bond themselves with the copper.

It is also to important to know here that this so called control of the molecule happens only at - 450 F, not above that. With every rise in the temperature, the rotations of the molecule tends to increase and it becomes impossible to control and measure its activities. Merely some degrees above from - 450, it becomes impossible to control and measure its rotations, and at - 273 F, its rotations reaches almost at one million per second. Thus, we can imagine what will happen at normal temperature.

James, this is precisely I was talking about; limitations and absolutes. No one can go on and on forever in a particular deduction practically. There will be a limit to everything. Yes, one can deduct theories as far as one likes but only on the paper, not on the ground.

It is practically impossible to control materials at actual nano level. Yes, we can interfere in that to some extent, as this experiment suggests.

First, it was just a demonstration of the smallest they managed. They made no claim of it being practical. But realize that they can freeze an extremely small point of material with very little electric current so as to provide the temperature and vacuum issues.

I agree that everything has a limit. I don't know of anyone who said otherwise. But that limit is not such that nanobots cannot be man-made. If nature can do it, man can do it.

James, there is one more aspect of this nano thing, which have not got attention so far.

Interference and even making some nano level things is not such a big deal. The fact of the matter is that every event happens at nano level, or even smaller scales.

The real issue is control, both in making and measurement. That is where the actual problem lies. Unless one is not adopting bottom to up approach, he is not inventing any nano material.

Let me take an example to explain my point. We have simple light torches since long. But, what actually it does?

Does it not produce photons, which is a nano level material? Can we not on and off the flow of photons at our will, along with its direction? But, can we consider a torch as a nano invention?

I do not think so. It will be an abuse to the spirit of the definition. The same applies to this single molecular motor too.

With love,
sanjay

When they are talking about moving individual particles, not merely photons, they are talking about nanotech. But they can also fire individual photons (much larger than a particle). Remember that I live in the PICO-world. To me, nanobots are HUGE.

James,

I forgot to mention one more thing.

This is again a misrepresentation that molecule rotates around the bond. It merely bounces around in jittery hops and its rotation is not exclusively one sided either. Again, it just favors one side more than the other.

They claim that motor rotates @ 50 rounds per second, which is not entirely true. It actually rotates 50 rounds more in one particular direction than the opposite one. The total counts of the rotations is actually 120, not 50. Means, it rotates 85 rounds in one way and 35 in other. So, there is no real control on the activity of the motor.

James, i consider you more informed and knowledgeable than me by a fair margin. Please correct me if i got anything wrong scientifically.

with love,
sanjay

Well, I had understood that part. But realize that in matters of having thousands of such a thing making any kind of controlled motion, air and fluid flow can be controlled, even though the armature isn't always going the desired direction. It is the average behavior that is important and useful.

An example is using such ultra small mechanisms covering the top of an integrated circuit to move the air across it such as to cool it down. Such things can also be used to direct insects away from areas or migrate dust away from surfaces or prevent corrosion on important surfaces.

[zinnat]

J - I'm afraid I will have to disagree with you on that one.

Electrons never touch. As any one approaches another, a magnetic field is automatically created. In fact, an electron cannot move at all without automatically creating a magnetic field. And it is in fact that field (merely a compressed electric field) that causes the rotary motion of the molecule, as well as the armature of an electric motor. Who cares if there is a stator associated with it, but in reality, the substrate in which the electrons flow is such a stator.

S - James, I think that you need to check the details of the experiment once more.

There is no question about that the electrons are used as a physical force as far as the molecules are concerned. Yes, it is true that electrons move towards the plate because of the magnetic field but all this has nothing to do with the molecule. It is intentionally and specifically placed in such a way that electrons had no choice but you hit it. Molecule does not rotate because it is affected by any magnetic field but only because electrons hit its arms.

The propellers of a wind turbine has to be moved by the wind, not by water otherwise it will become a water turbine instead. In the same way, in an electric motor, the rotor has to moved by the magnetic field, not any physical force.

J - I can't see anything to disqualify it from being properly called a "motor". But more importantly, it is man made and controlled just like a motor is, so who cares what you call it.

S - It is certainly a motor but not an electric motor as they presented it. They claimed the world record for the smallest electric motor not merely a motor. That is certainly objectionable.

This issue goes even further. When I was looking for the details, I came to know that this is not the first single molecule motor. There were others already but they were driven by other means, like photons or chemicals. So, if this motor was not claimed as an electric motor, it would have not made any headlines.

And, in that case, the inventor of this motor would have not funding for his group, which he runs besides Tufts university. This tells about the intentions of the inventor.

J - Again, you seem to be trying too hard to disqualify it based on trivialities. Yes, the copper plate is a part of the motor, but that plate doesn't need to be much larger, if any, than the molecule. I'm sure for convenience, it was actually much larger, but it didn't have to be. The whole thing has to sit on something and have a mount. But inside a future nanobot, that entire thing might well be only slightly larger than that one molecule. It depends on the rest of the bot.

But even if it was 100 times larger than the molecule, it would still fit inside your arbitrary designation. Frankly, it could be 1000n wide and still be a nanobot.

S - James, I am not doing anything out of the ordinary to prove or disprove anything. I am just trying to stick to the facts and definitions.

And, it is a fact that the size of the copper plate cannot be of the nanoscale because of the practical reasons. It has to be connected by an electric wire to let the current through it.

If one is building a nanoscale arrangement then all components should be of that scale. The same should be in the case of the electric motor, except the source of electric supply. That is allowed.

James, there cannot be any such thing which does not have nano components, or events which would lack nanoscale. But, that does not make anything a nano material by default. One has to make and control at nano level in actual terms.

J - First, it was just a demonstration of the smallest they managed. They made no claim of it being practical. But realize that they can freeze an extremely small point of material with very little electric current so as to provide the temperature and vacuum issues.

I agree that everything has a limit. I don't know of anyone who said otherwise. But that limit is not such that nanobots cannot be man-made. If nature can do it, man can do it.

S - They may have not claimed anything such specifically but they present their case in such a way that is going to be misunderstood by the most of the folks.

James, the fact of the matter is that they made some sort of breakthrough only in the measurement , not in operation. That process was already achieved by others and at the same scale too. They merely made it slow enough to measure. That is the only credit they deserve at the most.

Secondly, nanobots cannot be man-made, if you go by the actual definition of nanoscale. Yes, one can interact or interfere with their behavior to some extent but it is not the same as making or controlling nanobots.

Thirdly, a man cannot do all what the nature can do. There will be something always lacking. A man can even be a or the God but still there will something lacking.

Nature/existence manifests the God, not the other way around. Existence supersedes everything.

J - When they are talking about moving individual particles, not merely photons, they are talking about nanotech. But they can also fire individual photons (much larger than a particle). Remember that I live in the PICO-world. To me, nanobots are HUGE.

S - They do not have the same definition of a particle as you have. They are talking about atomic level here, not beyond that.

J - Well, I had understood that part. But realize that in matters of having thousands of such a thing making any kind of controlled motion, air and fluid flow can be controlled, even though the armature isn't always going the desired direction. It is the average behavior that is important and useful.

An example is using such ultra small mechanisms covering the top of an integrated circuit to move the air across it such as to cool it down. Such things can also be used to direct insects away from areas or migrate dust away from surfaces or prevent corrosion on important surfaces.

S - I agree that every new knowledge has some applications and it is quite possible that this one will also be used in the same way. I am not against it either.

But, that is besides the point. I am arguing here only against the possibility of inventing and controlling nanobots completely, not pseudo making or control. Living beings are doing that since ages without knowing. Yes, we can now measure and understand that phenomenon better.

With love,
Sanjay

[James S Saint]

nan·o·bot (năn′ō-bŏt′)
n.
A microscopic robot built from nanoscale components, typically 0.1 to 10 micrometers in length.

I could argue with almost everything that you have said, but I don't see the point in doing so. You seem stuck on being pedantic about irrelevancies, presumptuous about details, and wishful with your conclusions. Rather than fully accept the truth, you seem to want to convince yourself and others of your preferences (much like on other topics).

Believe what you wish to believe if that is your only source of hope.

[zinnat]

J - nan·o·bot (năn′ō-bŏt′)
n.
A microscopic robot built from nanoscale components, typically 0.1 to 10 micrometers in length.

James, that is precisely the issue. This scale is not nanoscale. Things up to 10-6 are micro ones, not nano, unless you want to define in such a way.

J - You seem stuck on being pedantic about irrelevancies, presumptuous about details, and wishful with your conclusions. Rather than fully accept the truth, you seem to want to convince yourself and others of your preferences (much like on other topics).

Believe what you wish to believe if that is your only source of hope.

S - James, this motor does not give me any fear or hope, whether it is feasible or not. I am not sure how that even relevant either.

My argument against this is purely on the grounds of physics, not my religious beliefs, if that is your thinking.

With love,
Sanjay