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