Are Molecular Assembler Bots Possible in Nanotechnology?

  • Thread starter Thread starter donkeyhide
  • Start date Start date
donkeyhide
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
hi all. I'm new here and am doing some research on nanotechnology. i was hoping i could learn some more here about the 'sticky fingers' problem as it relates to molecular assemblers. my central question is: will molecular assembler bots ever be possible?

i've scanned some articles about the smalley-drexler debate. from what i understand, smalley's position is that molecular assembler bots will never be a possibility because once you start talking about manipulating individual atoms, you have to ask how you'll 'let go.' the fingers of the arm would stick to the atom being moved and there'd be no way to break the bond.

drexler claims that his ideas for assemblers never depended upon manipulator arms at all. i don't full get what he's talking about, but it looks to me as if drexler speaks about moving molecules, not atoms, in an assembly-line fashion, using a factory device that's a bit bigger than nano-scale. he mentions snapping the bonds using a 90 degree rotation of the 'dispenser' or whatever, when it's time to let go of the molecule.

if I'm understanding this correctly, then where did the idea for assembler bots begin in the first place? are they just a bit of hype that's lodged in the popular imagination?

i've also seen some talk about using enzymes to grow tailor-made materials. i'd like to know anything you have to say about that. but what I'm really interested in is the possibility of nanoconstructor bots. molecular assembler bots. i need to know the fact from the fiction. i know that such bots, if they are even possible, are decades away. i know that they remain in the realm of sci-fi. but that's okay. I'm just trying to determine if there's something fundamentally wrong with the idea.

thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
please, will someone take a crack at this? i seriously need a perspective on this.
 
Try posting your question down on the general engineering forum. There's been some discussion of nanotechnology there.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!
According to recent podcast between Jacob Barandes and Sean Carroll, Barandes claims that putting a sensitive qubit near one of the slits of a double slit interference experiment is sufficient to break the interference pattern. Here are his words from the official transcript: Is that true? Caveats I see: The qubit is a quantum object, so if the particle was in a superposition of up and down, the qubit can be in a superposition too. Measuring the qubit in an orthogonal direction might...
Back
Top