Ask a Christian nanotechnologist!

[TheReasoner]

Since we're all in the mood for ASKING all the time. I DO defer to the local resident physicist "Wiccan Child" as I understand he has a degree while I am still working on mine. And his is in PHYSICS
Mine will merely be in nanotechnology, (MST) so it might be more specific than WC's.

Aaaanywaaay, we have our 'ask a physicist' thread, our 'ask a christian' thread - so I figured why on earth not "Ask a christian scientist" thread as well. Though I defer that title to my most esteemed superiors who hold completed degrees.

Regardless: I DO accept evolution, big bang, quantum physics, relativity and the love and mercy of Christ. And cake. If you want to give me some. Mmmm. Cake!

 

[AV1611VET]

Aaaanywaaay, we have our 'ask a physicist' thread, our 'ask a christian' thread - which appears to be filled with what I considr the highly fallacious conclusion that a Christian is also a person who either doesn't know much about science OR thinks there's a conflict between the two.

Speaking of 'fallacious' -- you might want to take another look at the name of that thread.

 

[TheReasoner]

Speaking of 'fallacious' -- you might want to take another look at the name of that thread.

So many here make threads on this board to be about creationism vs. evolution. You, dad, the other 1611 guy and others.

Apologies, I thought this was even more of the same.

 

[Nostromo]

When will your army of nanobots be ready to consume the Earth?

 

[USincognito]

Are you working with theoretical or practical applications; and with machines or materiels?

 

[TheReasoner]

When will your army of nanobots be ready to consume the Earth?

Nanobots? What nanobots? Can you see any? No! So they are not lying around us everywhere just waiting for my startsignal, are they?

What a preposterous idea! Completely off the mark! I disavow ALL knowledge of ANY such nanobots you may or may not have seen under an AFM, SEM, TEM or other sufficiently powerul microscope.

 

[TheReasoner]

Are you working with theoretical or practical applications; and with machines or materiels?

For now, theoretical courses about practical applications. The course - lasting five years - is very "wide". So we are taught basics in bio-nanotechnology, materials science[bless and do not curse][nano related], nano-electronics and other subjects. So far we've been too busy with theory in chemistry, physics, mathematics some more mathematics and biotechnology to do much lab work. We're doing SOME though, in an ISO 5 clean room. Dressing up like this:

Of course if we were to put even the cleanroom boots on a bench like that we'd be told off. That's not something you do. Feet ON THE FLOOR! Also, he's not wearing gloves. Another major no-no.

What we've done there is not too interesting I'm afraid. Just some work on gallium arsenide wafers. Making hall bars and the like. Two years are almost up, and NOW the fun starts. As we now know a lot about how materials behave, how the laws of physics change at that scale and so on.

 

[USincognito]

Neat stuff.

What we've done there is not too interesting I'm afraid. Just some work on gallium arsenide wafers. Making hall bars and the like. Two years are almost up, and NOW the fun starts. As we now know a lot about how materials behave, how the laws of physics change at that scale and so on.

I was watching a program on nanotechnology recently on which they discussed the issue of surface tension and why we can't just scale down larger machines if they're going to pass through a watery medium. The researchers were looking at microbes to figure out a workaround to that issue.

And have you heard of Dr. Kevin Ausman? He and I were on a forum together back in the late 90s. He worked with the nanotech center at Rice and now heads a group at Oklahoma State.

 

[TheReasoner]

Neat stuff.



I was watching a program on nanotechnology recently on which they discussed the issue of surface tension and why we can't just scale down larger machines if they're going to pass through a watery medium. The researchers were looking at microbes to figure out a workaround to that issue.

And have you heard of Dr. Kevin Ausman? He and I were on a forum together back in the late 90s. He worked with the nanotech center at Rice and now heads a group at Oklahoma State.

I think I may have heard of the Ausman group, but I can't be sure. There are many players on the nanotech field. And who can blame them? It's an exceptionally interesting field!

Yes, we have some researchers working on biomimicry here too. Nature has done a lot of stuff on the nano level and the bottom up approach many organisms has to constructing nanostructures is extremely interesting.
Examples many people easily can relate to is for example the pigmentation of (some) butterfly wings, which is simply due to nano structures. Or the feet of the gecko, who can walk on any surface - even in vacuum as the nanostructures on the soles of it's feet stick by way of van-der-waal's forces to any surface.

I envision that we will see many great advances where nanotechnology meets biotechnology for this reason. Evolution has produced some great designs after all these millions of years, so often the best we can do is look at what it has achieved and copy it shamelessly

 

[Maxwell511]

What we've done there is not too interesting I'm afraid.

I disagree

Just some work on gallium arsenide wafers.

Why gallium arsenide wafers? As in; what properties does gallium arsenide have that makes it suited for nanotechology?

 

[TheReasoner]

I disagree

Thank you Maxwell! Say... Could you explain those relations to me? (Maxwell relations. In statistical thermodynamics. I don't really care for them much. They're cool, but not all too easily understood I think)

Why gallium arsenide wafers? As in; what properties does gallium arsenide have that makes it suited for nanotechology?

Gallium arsenide is a better semiconductor than silicon. It has greater electron mobility, and it has properties which reduce parasitic capacitance. More than that, it's easier to run tests on, even if it is more fragile than Si. Typically. Which makes it ideal for lab tests. The results are easier to distinguish.

One of the main reasons Si is used in wafer production today is that it's cheaper. Gallium is better in many ways however.

As for nanotech... It all depends on what you're going for. We're (my department, not me I'm afraid) working on several projects relating to GaAs nanorods for application in electronics and photovoltaics. And that is very integrering indeed!

 

[Maxwell511]

Thank you Maxwell! Say... Could you explain those relations to me? (Maxwell relations. In statistical thermodynamics. I don't really care for them much. They're cool, but not all too easily understood I think)

They are just mathematical theorems. I think, I don't really know much about them. Sorry, I can't explain them beyond the mathematics. I don't know what they "mean" without context, if you understand.

Gallium arsenide is a better semiconductor than silicon. It has greater electron mobility, and it has properties which reduce parasitic capacitance. More than that, it's easier to run tests on, even if it is more fragile than Si. Typically. Which makes it ideal for lab tests. The results are easier to distinguish.

One of the main reasons Si is used in wafer production today is that it's cheaper. Gallium is better in many ways however.

As for nanotech... It all depends on what you're going for. We're (my department, not me I'm afraid) working on several projects relating to GaAs nanorods for application in electronics and photovoltaics. And that is very integrering indeed!

So it is not like an LED thing? Where you need something different than Si to make them work?

 

[Resha Caner]

Since we're all in the mood for ASKING all the time. I DO defer to the local resident physicist "Wiccan Child" as I understand he has a degree while I am still working on mine. And his is in PHYSICS
Mine will merely be in nanotechnology, (MST) so it might be more specific than WC's.

Aaaanywaaay, we have our 'ask a physicist' thread, our 'ask a christian' thread - so I figured why on earth not "Ask a christian scientist" thread as well. Though I defer that title to my most esteemed superiors who hold completed degrees.

OK. Now I'm jealous. Do I get my own thread as well? I have degrees in 2 separate fields (engineering & history). I work with the VERY LARGE earth-bound (and yet mobile) machines (no I am not a minion of Saruman).

Regardless: I DO accept evolution, big bang, quantum physics, relativity and the love and mercy of Christ. And cake. If you want to give me some. Mmmm. Cake!

No. Kinda. Kinda. Kinda. Yes. I prefer Cheetos.

 

[USincognito]

I have degrees in 2 separate fields (engineering & history).

Nerd!

 

[Resha Caner]

Nerd!

 

[TheReasoner]

They are just mathematical theorems. I think, I don't really know much about them. Sorry, I can't explain them beyond the mathematics. I don't know what they "mean" without context, if you understand.

No prob. It's just the part of statistical thermodynamics which annoys me the most. It's understandable, but hard to apply, I think.

So it is not like an LED thing? Where you need something different than Si to make them work?

LED? Nah. Think solar cells. Radial solar cells with GaAs nanorods. There's a serious amount of research being poured into third gen. solar cells. Radial ones have several significant advantages over planar solar cells. The potential of this technological shift could be extreme. CalTech has a decent explanation of that here: Radial Junction
Though there is work on GaAs based lasers too.

Mmmm. Lasers!

OK. Now I'm jealous. Do I get my own thread as well? I have degrees in 2 separate fields (engineering & history). I work with the VERY LARGE earth-bound (and yet mobile) machines (no I am not a minion of Saruman).

Awesome! You know what? One of the problems I have is that I always envy someone else's expertise. That's one reason why I chose this degree. It will give me a good understanding of biology (or rather the stuff that goes on inside cells), materials science, physics and chemistry.

No. Kinda. Kinda. Kinda. Yes. I prefer Cheetos.

Mmmm. Cheetos
Don't worry Resha, my acceptance is not absolute. It merely lasts until said theory is debunked and a paradigm shift brightens the day with it's golden hue.

I'd love to have a conversation with you on history. What precisely is your degree in? The history one I mean

 

[Chesterton]

What we've done there is not too interesting I'm afraid. Just some work on gallium arsenide wafers.

You know them Catholics use wafers too. I don't trust them either.

 

[Resha Caner]

I'd love to have a conversation with you on history. What precisely is your degree in? The history one I mean

So far I only have my BA, but I want to work toward a PhD. We'll see which comes first - the grave or a PhD. Since I work full time and have kids it's slow going. I'm taking a break before I start my master's work - a break necessitated by family demands. If I were younger I could chase several options. I had an offer to go to London to study and I visited with a professor in West Virginia. However, my situation forces me to consider some options that are closer to home.

I have several interests that are, in my mind, connected. What I'd probably rank as #1 is the conquering of the Byzantine Empire by the Turks and the way Chrisitians handled that transition. But I also love the whole cultural heritage of the Eastern Mediterranean - especially the Greeks & their philosophy, which leads me into an interest in the Philosophy of Science (the professor in WV was encouraging me to focus on that last one since it connects to my engineering background).

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Prince Charles popularised the phrase 'grey goo'. Do you think there's any chance of that end-of-the-world scenario actually happening?

 

[TheReasoner]

Prince Charles popularised the phrase 'grey goo'. Do you think there's any chance of that end-of-the-world scenario actually happening?

No. The 'grey goo' scenario (as a term it was coined by Eric Drexler in "Engines of Creation", a supposedly good book which I am yet to read) is not something I consider feasible. Certainly problems can arise with any self-replicating creation. But the hypothesized self-replicating nanobots have many problems which I do not see as overcomable now, if ever, in that scenario. Energy requirements, process control, complications related to propagating flaws or alterations in the design following self replication...

After all, we already have such machines which like the hypothesized nanobots have but one primary function: Self replication. These machines have been around for millions of years - if not billions - and we ain't all consumed yet. In fact, we're part of that. Cells are if you get right down to it, self replicating machines which will not stop replicating so long as the conditions are right.

You could do a hypothetical thought experiment if you like.
Say you have an e-coli bacteria. It weighs 10 −15 picogram (pg). Let's say 10, for simplicity's sake. Their volume is 0.6 - 0.7 (μm)3. Again we choose the smaller measurement.
E-coli have a generation time of about 40 minutes. That is, every 40 minutes they double.
Hence we get the simple formula for number of bacteria in a given colony as:
2^n where n is the number of generations at a given time. That is: n=t/40 min^-1
If we start with one single cell and let it have it's way for 4 days, what should we end up with? Roughly 2.2*10^30 kg.The mass of the earth, in contrast, is 5.9742 × 10^24 kilograms....