tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5554620.post110806437338778470..comments2023-10-18T03:56:28.984-04:00Comments on Howard Lovy's NanoBot: Molecules, machines and miraclesUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5554620.post-1108596088103900782005-02-16T18:21:00.000-05:002005-02-16T18:21:00.000-05:00On Eigler: I don't think he's been cited by the MM...On Eigler: I don't think he's been cited by the MM community as an existence proof of mechanosynthesis. Just as evidence that some of the requirements--atomically precise positioning, and atoms staying where you put them--are achievable. (This was more important a decade ago, when people were still objecting that quantum noise would make atoms hop around as though they were electrons.)<br /><br />There's a clear difference, but it's possible that people thought we were saying Eigler was actually doing MM. I've heard third-hand that Eigler was pestered by people who thought he was inventing nanobots. That's a shame. <br /><br />On Drexler and nanotechnology: Lots of nanoscale research was being done before Drexler came along. But if Drexler hadn't coined (independently of that Japanese guy who used "nano-technology" for micromachining) and popularized the word "nanotechnology," and given people a vision of nanoscale manufacturing systems making amazingly advanced products, the nanoscale research people would still be doing biochemistry, materials science, macromolecular chemistry, and what have you. They wouldn't be in a unified field getting a billion dollars a year and a lot of press. In that sense, Drexler is the father of the field.<br /><br />One more note on Eigler: his presentation was mainly rhetoric: he put up a flawed syllogism, called it something like "speculation," then accused the MM people of engaging in that (i.e. he implied that we don't know how to do the most basic logic). And he implied that we have no more knowledge of nanoscale machinery and manufacturing than the ancient Greeks had of flight (therefore we're doing no more than spinning Icarus myths). <br /><br />I didn't see any actual technical criticism in Eigler's remarks. That kind of nasty rhetoric might work on a different audience, but I'm hoping it will backfire this time; the committee, from everything I saw, is smart and savvy enough to realize just how little content and how much venom was in Eigler's presentation.<br /><br />ChrisAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5554620.post-1108136153036385272005-02-11T10:35:00.000-05:002005-02-11T10:35:00.000-05:00"Molecular manufacturing belongs in the realm of w..."Molecular manufacturing belongs in the realm of what I would call supposition, or speculation" - Don Eigler<br /><br />Eigler's pioneering work on single atom and molecule manipulation, has been cited by proponents of the Drexlerian MNT 'vision' as an 'existence proof' for mechanosynthesis (albeit, without justification - see http://www.softmachines.org/wordpress/index.php?p=70).<br />It is therefore fascinating to read of Eigler's stinging criticism of Drexler's molecular manufacturing concept. <br /><br />"Eric Drexler fathered the modern field of nanotechnology more than two decades ago". <br /><br />It's time to get beyond this fallacy! Eigler, for example (and amongst a number of other candidates (some being Nobel prize winning scientists)) is a much more appropriate candidate for the mantle "forefather of nanotechnology".<br /><br />Howard, please let me know if there's a transcript of this discussion available - it'd make for extremely interesting reading!<br /><br />Best wishes,<br /><br />PhilipAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com