Comments on: Feynman’s Path to Nanotech (part 6)

By: Accelerating Future » J. Storrs Hall’s Feynman Path Proposal to MNT

Accelerating Future » J. Storrs Hall’s Feynman Path Proposal to MNT — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 19:24:59 +0000

[...] studied and analyzed? 4. The Feynman path involves more than MEMS 5. Is it worth starting now? 6. Some of the Open Questions 7. Outline of the steps to make a Feynman Path roadmap. 8. An example of prior work which suggests [...]

By: Dr. Victor Pinks II

Dr. Victor Pinks II — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 02:08:05 +0000

I concur with Trent Waddington, however, he doesn’t answer the core question – How do you “require the running system to provide the same signals” as the experimentally measured ones? If he told us that, then we could answer all of the open questions. What he is actually asking us to do is to solve the n-body problem in a quip. As a molecular dynamics coding author and paradigm developer with the theoretical training specific for, and fundamental understanding of this problem, I will add to his response. An inductive feedback mechanism from the real world to the model world (simulations) is the next critical step. All of the rest will fall in place if we have a way for the real world to correct the models in a manner that causes realism convergence and thus realistic behavior in simulation (yes, that includes realistic self-assembly). There is such a mechanism that has been successfully prototyped. In my opinion, if “experts” continue to sidestep the realism question the credibility of the nanotech promise will progressively erode.

By: Trent Waddington

Trent Waddington — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 06:06:39 +0000

To answer the last question.. you do a simulation of the system a-prior and calculate a timeline macroscopic effects that can be measured (typically heat or acidity in biological systems) and then require the running system to provide the same signals. Thus you get a “heartbeat” and can shutdown any system that beats irregularly.