Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Attotechnology and beyond


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#21
FlameWave

FlameWave

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts
Couldn't we technically create other universes and edit particles as small as we want via computer and them transfer them over?? (Thinking like T3 civ or even T4)

#22
Shimmy

Shimmy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 601 posts

Couldn't we technically create other universes and edit particles as small as we want via computer and them transfer them over?? (Thinking like T3 civ or even T4)

You've solved it, I retract my previous skepticism.

#23
MarcusAurelius

MarcusAurelius

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 161 posts
This just in from zeitnews might be of interest to some http://www.zeitnews....microscope.html

#24
FlameWave

FlameWave

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 38 posts


Couldn't we technically create other universes and edit particles as small as we want via computer and them transfer them over?? (Thinking like T3 civ or even T4)

You've solved it, I retract my previous skepticism.


What did I solve, lol. I didn't read anyone's comments because I was lazy. Do I get a prize???? :D

#25
MarcusAurelius

MarcusAurelius

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 161 posts
NEW IBM MICROSCOPE TECHNIQUE HAS RESOLUTION 100 TIMES SMALLER THAN AN ATOM

Don't know if its been reported here yet, but an interesting development and relevant to this thread.

http://singularityhu...r-than-an-atom/

Posted Image

#26
Raklian

Raklian

    An Immortal In The Making

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,051 posts
  • LocationRaleigh, NC

NEW IBM MICROSCOPE TECHNIQUE HAS RESOLUTION 100 TIMES SMALLER THAN AN ATOM

Don't know if its been reported here yet, but an interesting development and relevant to this thread.

http://singularityhu...r-than-an-atom/

Posted Image


I already posted this news a few weeks ago.
What are you without the sum of your parts?

#27
kjaggard

kjaggard

    Artificer

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,003 posts
  • Locationwhere fanciful imaginings and hard won knowledge meet to genesis the future.
I'm of two mind on the idea. Going from sculpting mass to chemistrys molecules, and chemistrys molecules down to atoms is a gradual progression. from atom to proton doesn't have middle steps and and the size difference is huge. That is going to be one hell of a barrier to cross. And at that point there is a metric crap ton of amazing stuff to do with nanotech to keep us occupied. But I'm not sure it's impossible. we will eventually cross that barrier and when we do it will be possible to take things like nuclear waste and turn it into useable matter and valuble assets. We will likely also create things like neutronium going much below that size will likely be just as hard a drop as atom to proton and the only thing driving it would be computer abilities and exotic matter. I can't see a reason why we won't some day come to a point where the line between 'holographic' virtual things and real things would be so blurred as to be insignificant. at that point it's like the Q continuum. The very nature of the universe could easily be manipulated and we might well be pondering how to reverse the endless expansion of the universe and how to make it all self renewing or how to bridge the gap into other inverses and how to tap the very fabric of the multiverse.
Live content within small means. Seek elegance rather than luxury, Grace over fashion and wealth over riches.
Listen to clouds and mountains, children and sages. Act bravely, think boldly.
Await occasions, never make haste. Find wonder and awe, by experiencing the everyday.

#28
UFG

UFG

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 274 posts
I would hope that our development of nano-tech will be faster than what we see on the graph. 20 more years seems a stretch for nano cellular repair machines. I would think it to be shorter than that. 30 years seems too long for devices and implants as well. But then, the graphing of atto-tech seems too optimistic.

#29
Raklian

Raklian

    An Immortal In The Making

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,051 posts
  • LocationRaleigh, NC
Atto-tech is what we need if we wish to create that exotic matter required for warp drive. When matter becomes dense enough by changing the very composition of an atom so that its nucleus can be right next to nuclei of other atoms, spacetime is warped. Blackholes and neutron stars do the same thing as they are extremely dense.

Edited by Raklian, 23 October 2012 - 06:44 PM.

What are you without the sum of your parts?

#30
Jakob

Jakob

    Stable Genius

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,133 posts

Since there are objects on the scale of attometers (quarks), attotechnology might make some sense. Probably it would be used for exotic energy sources and to build objects capable of low-level reality warping.

 

It seems that zeptotechnology would involve manipulating particles on the order of neutrinos. Perhaps useful for high-level reality warping, such as having an object that can be in two places at once? Or as a power source for the universe factories that a Type V Civilization would operate?



#31
Ru1138

Ru1138

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,190 posts
  • LocationIllinois

I'm not sure it's possible. You can hardly build things smaller than atoms, so you get the 'fat finger' problem. I think we will probably reach a boarder we can't overcome. The green line seems realistic, but the red line seems very unlikely to me.

 

I've thought about this before. If there were some way to manage electrical charges on a scale smaller than the nanoscale, or developed a set of optical tweezers using x-ray or (currently hypothetical) gamma ray lasers, you might be able to manipulate things smaller than an atom.


What difference does it make?


#32
Ru1138

Ru1138

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,190 posts
  • LocationIllinois

Oh, and there are possibilities in bootstrapping our way to smaller-than-nanoscale technologies.

 

Look here: http://nextbigfuture...peculation.html


What difference does it make?


#33
JCO

JCO

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,032 posts
  • LocationWA, USA

One problem with the graph and the general discussion of the different scales of technologies is there tends to be the assumption that they all work the same way. A good example of this is clock work. Though the workings of a grandfather clock and a pocket watch. Though there are many similarities in their design there are significant differences largely dictated by their scale. Also the chart ignores the fact that watches contained parts that were smaller than 1 cm as much as 300 years ago. You could also view weaving silk to be nearly nanotechnology as structure in the fabric smaller than 1 mm could be manufactured.

 

As for when will we start using various of the technology scales I think the first nanotube product announces the beginning of picotechnology. I think pico scale will mainly involve controlling manufacturing on individual molecular level as is currently done in several "nanomaterials". Femtotech will most likely be the ability to manipulate on an atomic level. This would involve being able to make specific changes to an atom's structure. Beyond that I can see the ability to modify subatomic particles as being something that is achievable. 

 

All these technologies will have definite limitations. Think of an alchemist discovering a process to turn lead into gold. The process turns on ounce of lead into one ounce of gold and consumes one pound of platinum. The result is a net loss.


Confirmed Agnostic - I know that I don't know for sure and I am almost certain no one else does either.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users