Nano-field Will Ultimately Aid Physics Knowledge

[Nano-Passion]

At one point, biology helped physics unravel the conservation of energy.

I believe the same will be true for nanotechnology. My prediction: as nano-engineers constantly push to control over atomic level of nature, it will help unravel certain traits and behaviors of atoms...and thus aid physics in the race for knowledge. Particularly in the quantum theories (things on the atomic scale).

This is just something that has been lingering on my mind. Thoughts?

 

[alxm]

Wel, we already have a science called Chemistry that's been dealing with the properties of atoms for over 200 years. And it's been unified with quantum mechanics since only months after the birth of quantum mechanics. 1 nm may be small for something that's a bulk particle, but it's huge for a molecule.

Taking some bits of chemistry and some bits of solid-state physics and re-branding it as 'nanotechnology' is good for funding and marketing, but it doesn't really change anything about the fundamental science. I just don't view it as a field. A solid-state physicist studying quantum dots is supposedly doing 'nanotech', and so is a chemical engineer studying nanoparticle catalysis. But they don't have more in common with each other than with other members of their respective fields who aren't working on something that's 'nano'.

 

[Drakkith]

I'm sure it will greatly help us in our understanding of the interaction of molecules and atomic scale objects. Will it change the fundementals of physics on that scale? Probably not in my opinion. Should be interesting though!

 

[Nano-Passion]

Wel, we already have a science called Chemistry that's been dealing with the properties of atoms for over 200 years. And it's been unified with quantum mechanics since only months after the birth of quantum mechanics. 1 nm may be small for something that's a bulk particle, but it's huge for a molecule.

Taking some bits of chemistry and some bits of solid-state physics and re-branding it as 'nanotechnology' is good for funding and marketing, but it doesn't really change anything about the fundamental science. I just don't view it as a field. A solid-state physicist studying quantum dots is supposedly doing 'nanotech', and so is a chemical engineer studying nanoparticle catalysis. But they don't have more in common with each other than with other members of their respective fields who aren't working on something that's 'nano'.

Interesting post. The difference is the engineering of technology that can work on the very small scales. You may not see it now but nanotechnology promises further and further control and precision over the nanoscale. The diameter of an atom is .1-.5 nanometers across (March, Robert H. Atom. USA: World Book Encyclopedia, 1995: 870.).

It is generally agreed that the diameter of atom is .1 nanometers across (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/MichaelPhillip.shtml).

With further control of such small scales can come further discoveries about the nature of atoms. More experiments can become possible on the atomic level as a result of nanotechnology.

It also becomes possible to learn more about the "sociology" of atoms (how they interact).

 

[Drakkith]

I agree with you Nano-Passion. there's is definitely room to learn more about the nature of atoms and molecules, especially once we get to the point of easily manipulating them on a nano scale.

 

[Dr Lots-o'watts]

There is no doubt that fields interact! Look at what engineers and computer scientists are allowing physicists and enthusiasts to do at this very instant!

"Nanotechnology" is just a trendy word. Much of what it involves has been around for at least decades under various distinct names. Practitioners don't use that word among themselves. It's a bridge to reach the general public.

 

[Nano-Passion]

There is no doubt that fields interact! Look at what engineers and computer scientists are allowing physicists and enthusiasts to do at this very instant!

"Nanotechnology" is just a trendy word. Much of what it involves has been around for at least decades under various distinct names. Practitioners don't use that word among themselves. It's a bridge to reach the general public.

It is such a trendy word, and it enables people to easily jump on the "nanowagon" (bandwagon) so to speak. I do realize that.

But, what nanotechnology brings that others don't is the move from bulk technology to molecular technology. Today we still manipulate nature around us but millions, billions, or trillions at a time.

The word has been overused and became vague. What true nanotechnology brings is the manipulation of atoms one at a time (or so we hope)! It promises things such as molecular manufacturing, "nano-factories", or robots small enough to interact between with things in our body.

 

[Dr Lots-o'watts]

... What true nanotechnology brings is the manipulation of atoms one at a time (or so we hope)! It promises things such as molecular manufacturing, "nano-factories", or robots small enough to interact between with things in our body.

I'm not sure where single atom manipulation has gone after that well publicized IBM logo and little man. There also an impressive micron-sized, laser-sculpted bull in the media, but I haven't heard what it has led to yet, either.