Molnan t1_j69gr0c wrote on January 28, 2023 at 6:34 PM

That's a really bad short article. Actual nanobot designs don't have "small metallic arms and claws", they are not made of metal but dense covalent macromolecules (usually "diamondoid", ie substituted diamond-like lattices), or some variation on graphene.

Proposals by Drexler, Freitas, Merkle and others in the field (as opposed to Sci-Fi BS) generally have been tested with the same ab initio quantum chemistry and molecular mechanics tools used by computational physical chemists to study and design real chemical reactions, later corroborated with experimental data.

Unfortunately, much of the introductory material is very dated, especially in style and presentation. Probably a good place to start for the technically inclined in Drexler's MIT dissertation, which is the basis for the book Nanosystems (one of the best sources), and can be freely downloaded here:

https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/27999

Some chapters of Nanosystems are also available online:

https://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/nanosystems.html

Then you can check out some videos on current experimental research at the Foresight website.

https://foresight.org/technologies/nanotech-molecular-machines/

Freitas's and Merkle's websites look very dated but they contain some interesting links.

http://www.rfreitas.com/

http://www.ralphmerkle.com/

I hope that helps.

kalavala93 OP t1_j69vdn9 wrote on January 28, 2023 at 8:15 PM

Would it be fair to say they don't know what they are talking about in this article?

Molnan t1_j6a8ryh wrote on January 28, 2023 at 9:48 PM

Yes, I see no other way to put it. To be fair, this is more the rule than the exception. I've seen just as bad or worse from people who should have (and probably did) know better. The fact that big bucks from the National Nanotechnology Initiative were at stake sure didn't help. See, for instance:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drexler%E2%80%93Smalley_debate_on_molecular_nanotechnology

DarkCeldori t1_j6dz9cc wrote on January 29, 2023 at 5:59 PM

There have also been critiques of diamondoid nanomachines. For example from Richard Jones author of Soft Machines: Nanotechnology and Life.

In any case it is not like we need mechanical diamondoid arms to fix cells. Cells recycle individual molecular machines and organic molecular machines are capable enough to edit genes and fix dna.

Besides outside the brain you can carry wholesale cellular replacement and even wholesale tissue and organ replacement.

Also the diamondoid machines are likely highly susceptible to some types of radiation. A cosmic ray dislodging an atom will like gum up the gears. In space which is a high radiation environment the diamondoids are likely to breakdown by the millions.

I think they could work on specialized vacuum environment but like Jones I also suspect theyd have problems in environments like inside the human body.

In any case it is likely unevolvable molecular machines through advanced synthetic biology are just as capable if not even more capable than the theorized diamondoid machines.