I tend to side with Kurzweil regarding his analysis of this debate, though Smalley's argument were useful insofar as they forced more precise articulations of Drexler's vision. Additionally, my guess is that the "industrial" mode of thinking remains incongruent with this scale.
The question I'm asking is: what sets the frequency? In general its a free parameter, and there is considerable arbitrariness in how it's set. In LIGO it's essentially set (IIRC) by the spring constant associated to the mirrors, but I'm not sure what the analog is here.
-
-
(These are the expressions for the standard quantum limit. The zeta is equal to 0, unless squeezing is present. Curious how omega is set.)pic.twitter.com/cpuM7KKywd
-
Matthew Pirkowski found a link to Drexler's thesis which has much of the same material. Just start reading the first few pages of Chapter 5.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
In a chemical bond, the frequency is set by the bond strength. (We care mostly about covalent bonds in solids for these purposes.) It's not arbitrary, you can calculate it for real materials, but you quickly figure out it all drops out for real systems.
-
BTW, just in case Drexler's assumptions aren't obvious to a non-specialist: there are three obvious quantum modes we need to consider for an atom in such a system: translational, vibrational, and rotational motions are relevant. But:
- 11 more replies
New conversation -
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.