Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Rolepgeek]

Right now, at least. We may only have the knowledge of what's possible today, but assuming that it'll be anything near where we are now in a few centuries is also fallacy. Look at where we were 100 years ago. Now think back 200. Now three hundred. Now take that difference and apply it, not even counting the accleration of technology, and apply it to the future.

Granted, there is a ceiling, but we don't know when it will be reached, and we can be fairly certain that it can and will be raised through various shenanigans of science.

[GreatWyrmGold]

That argument has been discussed and discounted at length. Unless you can find at least a theoretical basis for computing--at least simple computers--on the scale of a hundred atoms or so, please don't rely on the "It's the FUTURE!" argument.

[Rolepgeek]

But it's not a few hundred. If we're being realistic, I'd say it's more likely to be microbots than truly nano-sized ones, being the size of large cells, but denser and capable of more complex tasks. My basis for the computer? DNA. Evolution has found many ways to create very tiny things capable of simple tasks, and making them capable of more complex ones with input from and external source wouldn't be incredibly difficult in a century or two. Viruses are incredibly small, and can infect and reproduce, even if it's in a simple manner. Making machines that are slightly larger, with 'overseers' capable of receiving and processing information and then causing(perhaps not telling, but forcing or placing the smaller machines) the item to be created. It could even have overseers of the overseers, and so on, up to the central computer with the blueprint, which relays information to the smaller cores that contain a computer, the host of microbots, and the resource feed to make the object, several of which are placed around where you want the object to be. Or there could be a single one that starts by creating more of itself until there are enough, and then builds the item, finally using themselves as construction materials at the end, depending on the object. This isn't simply a matter of 'this is one way it might have been possible', it's a matter of 'something similar to this already happens in game and this is a possible explanation(especially since repairing is more complex if less resource intensive than construction).

[GreatWyrmGold]

DNA stores information, it doesn't process it. To do that requires several other proteins...and it's hard to wirelessly transmit nucleic acids.
If we're going to be making nanobots analogous to cells, we're moving the goalposts again, because last I saw they were talking about protein-scale nanobots.

Comparison to viruses is ludicrous. Viruses do one task, and they need the help of host cells to do it. Viruses can't do one thing until a certain point, only in part because they can't sense when that point is reached. They are one-purposed, and such an unstoppable monopurpose is not suited for building complex macroscale objects.

[Rolepgeek]

DNA stores information, it doesn't process it. To do that requires several other proteins...and it's hard to wirelessly transmit nucleic acids.
If we're going to be making nanobots analogous to cells, we're moving the goalposts again, because last I saw they were talking about protein-scale nanobots.

I'm talking about both, actually. The cell sized ones create and control the protein scale ones as tools. As for processing information, then it can fit, and with quantum computing, a lot can be done on such a small scale. Especially if the information is transmitted through code by light waves, or radio waves, or...see what I'm getting at?

Comparison to viruses is ludicrous. Viruses do one task, and they need the help of host cells to do it. Viruses can't do one thing until a certain point, only in part because they can't sense when that point is reached. They are one-purposed, and such an unstoppable monopurpose is not suited for building complex macroscale objects.

You're right. If only there was some way to create some sort of 'overseer' to create, start, stop, and recycle them at the appropriate times. It's too bad we can't do that...oh wait...

Edit: also, as to the skyscraper thing, if the nano machines built 3 centimeters a minute(which is really fucking fast) it'd take a week plus sixteen hours to build. This is a fast estimate, it'd probably take around two weeks to three months, depending on way it would need to be constructed and the speed Of the nanobots. Which is still incredibly, as in ludicrously, fast. Especially since they're doing it from raw materials; if they had preconstructed girders and such, it'd be faster.

[GreatWyrmGold]

DNA stores information, it doesn't process it. To do that requires several other proteins...and it's hard to wirelessly transmit nucleic acids.
If we're going to be making nanobots analogous to cells, we're moving the goalposts again, because last I saw they were talking about protein-scale nanobots.

I'm talking about both, actually. The cell sized ones create and control the protein scale ones as tools. As for processing information, then it can fit, and with quantum computing, a lot can be done on such a small scale. Especially if the information is transmitted through code by light waves, or radio waves, or...see what I'm getting at?

I think so.
I also think I've lost track of what, exactly, we mean by "nanomachines".

Comparison to viruses is ludicrous. Viruses do one task, and they need the help of host cells to do it. Viruses can't do one thing until a certain point, only in part because they can't sense when that point is reached. They are one-purposed, and such an unstoppable monopurpose is not suited for building complex macroscale objects.

You're right. If only there was some way to create some sort of 'overseer' to create, start, stop, and recycle them at the appropriate times. It's too bad we can't do that...oh wait...

You could probaly take the "start" and "stop" steps out if we're dealing with things analogous to viruses. And I'd be interested in how you destroy all of the viroids of one type when you need to.

[Rolepgeek]

Well, when I think nano machines, I think of machines smaller than you can see. So probably more micro than nano.

As to the viroids, you're probably right about taking out the start and stop steps, and for how to destroy them...I was thinking some sort of unique chemical that breaks it apart and only affects that type, or a signal perhaps, or even another type of viroid that takes apart that type and then itself until there is only one left, which the overseer can recycle. It is an issue, but one I feel could be solved by those with the right tools and education, even if I personally am not certain how to do so.

[GreatWyrmGold]

My bets would be on a chemical or another viroid.

[10ebbor10]

As to the viroids, you're probably right about taking out the start and stop steps, and for how to destroy them...I was thinking some sort of unique chemical that breaks it apart and only affects that type, or a signal perhaps, or even another type of viroid that takes apart that type and then itself until there is only one left, which the overseer can recycle. It is an issue, but one I feel could be solved by those with the right tools and education, even if I personally am not certain how to do so.

That would work perfectly, I suppose. Point of nanites is that you got a lot of things that can only do one thing, and need to get very creative to get them to do something complex. Nothing enough computer power can't solve.

[kahn1234]

To me, nanobots are several molecules large, which can be configured to do different things, and can move, and that's why it's a swarm. Just like we're several feet tall, and can manipulate marbles, a nanobot is more than one molecule, but can manipulate individual molecules.

Saying 'this is what nanites are' in a sic fi setting isn't fair to anyone involved; the other players or the GM. After all, space travel will be incredibly different, why not nanotechnology?

And then there is the fact that in the future nanotechnology could take any form and what i stated may in fact be possible (and it is actually being worked on now, by the way, so people 'in the know' must think it is possible).

Also, use wireless electricity (which does exist in prototype form today) to power them, and supercomputers to control them (or quantum computers, once we get them to actually work for longer than a few seconds).

[10ebbor10]

Sadly, that argument applies for virtually everything, and hence is inherently worthless in a discussion.

[GreatWyrmGold]

He did at least qualify his argument a bit.

[Rolepgeek]

Sadly, that argument applies for virtually everything, and hence is inherently worthless in a discussion.

Sadly true, though it did remind me; nanotech could also be as 'simple' as genetically modified cells.

[GreatWyrmGold]

I think that that would fall more under the purview of genetic engineering. And make sure not to program in evolutionary algorithms.

[kahn1234]

There is a surprising amount on nanotechnology on the net, even though it is an almost brand new technology.


One thing: Has anyone thought that nanomachines building something (probably out of super-strong nanomaterials) in the same way a 3D printer makes something, just better than a 3D printer?

Or maybe, just quickly making parts, which would cut construction/manufacturing times drastically as you are no longer transporting things all over the place?