Looks like Smalley has been proven right but the subsequent failures to develop this technology.
-
As far as I'm aware, it's standard physics that both position and momentum (but ofc not both at once) variance can be reduced arbitrarily. Indeed, LIGO has begun using squeezed states (of light, not matter, but the idea is the same) to improve their strain sensitivity.
Mechanical devices have to be simultaneously precise as to both position and momentum.
-
-
That puts severe limits on how small they can be made and retain sufficient precision.
-
So? We're not talking about electrons here, we're talking about things with many orders of magnitude more mass. There are actual calculations in Chapter 5 of Nanosystems. Which of them do you think is incorrect?
-
It is not enough to say "quantum mechanics!", there are actual well understood equations that govern quantum systems, and you can do calculations using them, and the calculations say you're wrong. If you disagree, say which eq is wrong in Ch. 5 of Nanosystems.
-
And again, positional uncertainty is tiny at room temperature; it only becomes interesting when you're operating at tiny fractions of a degree kelvin. At room temperature, only thermal motion is important, and it's still too small to cause trouble.
-
BTW, I'll repeat: the relevant calculations are done in Nanosystems, page 90 on. It turns out the only important component is "classical" uncertainty; the quantum corrections vanish at any reasonable temperature, and the motion due to classical vibration is fine in stiff systems.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
So? Have you read the actual chapter? Which equation do you think is wrong?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.