View source for Common misconceptions about atomically precise manufacturing


APM is a very novel area of research and development that dives into fields of knowledge that are yet pretty alien for most people including many "nanotechnology" experts.
When encountering a new network of knowledge one usually tries to apply existing knowledge to judge statements and claims - what else can one do.
Without deeper understanding of the relationships this can lead people into trapdoors. Some are so bad that almost everyone falls in. This page is intended to be a guide around those trapdoors.

= No nanobots here =

See main page: [[No nanobots]]

When thinking about manufacturing things from the bottom up almost atom by atom often <br>
the first association that often comes up are "nanobots" in the sense of <br>
"littly tiny critters" that can do highly compact [[self replication]].

A [[Nanosystems|more technical analysis]] though revealed that this concept is not the right <br>
approach. (At least when it comes to most manufacturing systems.) 

This (mis)association of APM with "nanobots" and
the intense historic discussion may be due to: <br>
(1) Nanobots being a self suggesting first idea.<br>
(2) Nanobots being a an idea that tends to rile up emotions 
because they coming with a number of wild secondary (mis)associations like:
* them being [[almost life like]] – The "How dare you try to play god argument".
* them being capable to evolve like bacteria cells 
* them being able to "eat" just about anything
* them getting [[grey goo horror fable|totally out of control]] – The "How dare you even think about something so dangerous argument"
And that's totally missing that [[molecular assembler|self replicatibe nanobots are not even the target anymore]].

= Macroscale style machinery at the nanoscale ?! =

Or: Macro-scale style machinery isn't suitable for the quantum world one needs something more exotic instead - wrong

Topic of discussion: <br>
What is under scrutiny here is what is crudely outlined in this animation video: <br>
[[Productive Nanosystems From molecules to superproducts]]. <br>
What is shown is a quite accurate visualization of the results of [[exploratory engineering]] that was done in the work that is [[Nanosystems]].

There are quite a number of points of critique here. <br>
They are listed and discussed on the page: '''[[Macroscale style machinery at the nanoscale]]''' <br>
The gist is: It is rather clear where the points of critique come from. That is: There are good reason for all these doubts given the current (2021) state of technology. But all of the most fundamental critique points have been analyzed and came to a favorabel conclusion for the concept to work. 
In the end it turns out that [[scaling law|the chaining of physics with size scales]] makes [[macroscale style machinery at the nanoscale]] actually work better rather than worse than "macroscale style technology at the macroscale". Contrary to the expectation of some "current day nanotechnology" experts.

== Potential concerns about mechanosynthesis ==

=== Atoms can't be placed individually because of "fat and sticky fingers" - sticky is actually good fat is just untrue for the tips ===

Disproved by basic experimental and detailed theoretical work. See: [[Mechanosynthesis]]. It may get a bit more challenging when the [[mechanosynthesis of chain molecules|mechanosynthesis of ''complex'' chain molecules]] is attempted.
Which is not a requirement for [[nanofactory|gem-gum-factories]].

See main articles: "[[Fat finger problem]]" and "[[Sticky finger problem]]" <br>
Or more generally see: "[[The finger problems]]". <br>
There are two more finger problems beside the two infamous ones.

=== Once placed atoms won't stay there because of "thermodynamics" - mostly false - solvable problem ===

In other words: Thermodynamics prevents one from having every atom at the place we want it - wrong for practical scales <br>

Picking the right materials to synthesize the placed atoms will very much stay where they are put. <br>
Except hit by hard radiation. Radiation can be dealt with by: 
* damage redundant design – (See: [[Redundancy]])
* damage resilient design – (Avoidance of [[semi diamondoid structure]]s)
* optionally by actively [[self repairing systems]]

More details:
* See: [[Thermal decay at room temperature]] – See: "[[Thermodynamics]]"
* See: [[Radiation damage]]

=== Atoms can't be placed fast enough - false ===

To make macroscopic products in a reasonable time-span by putting them together atom by atom would require
atom placement frequencies too high to reach.

This is not true. 
Quite moderate atom placement frequencies in the MHz range suffice when combined
with massive spacial parallelism that is hard but realistically to reach.
See: "[[Atom placement frequency]]" for details.

=== Control data can't be supplied fast enough - false ===

We already do similar things with our current technology.
See: [[Data IO bottleneck]]

If the goal would be to make an exact copy of some chunk of naturally occuring matter with every atom at the <br>
same place the amount of data would indeed could not be handled because the data can't be efficiently compressed. <br>
But that is not the goal. Even in the actual case of [[synthesis of food]] this is not the goal.

For organic matter the nature of data de-compression from DNA to tissue is vastly different to <br>
the data-compression in [[gem-gum factories]] from code to [[gem-gum]] product. <br>
See: [[Decompression chain]]

= It's called "nanotechnology" - not anymore =

Due to the terms extreme generality it caused confusion and conflict. <br>
Hardening misconceptions causing unjustified discreditation going as far as <br>
career fear based self censorship and consequently a severe setback in development.

For details see main article: "[[The term nanotechnology]]" (and page: [[History]]).

When referring to APM related ideas it's seems best 
* to refrain from using the term "nanotechnology" as much as possible and 
* to refrain from using the nano- prefix in general
But be more specific as far as this is possible.

= Nature does it differently thus advanced APM must be flawed. – Faulty reasoning. =

See main article: "[[Nature does it differently]]".

= It will be enormously difficult to develop advanced APM possibly requiring super advanced AI – Wrong =

* The biggest current challenges are of conceptual and institutional nature.
* What is not well know about advanced APM is that there is stuff that can be known.

This concern may come from a confusion of the complexity of targeted artificial productive nanosystems with:
* the complexity of life <small>(Not to say that this is impossible. The field of [[synthetic biology]], ''unrelated to APM(!)'', is the area aiming towards that)</small> and or
* the complexity of quantum mechanics (see: "[[It's not quantum mechanical]]")
{{wikitodo|add two appropriate links}}

= Advanced APM systems are a "castle in the sky" with no way to built them - not quite =

It has often be perceived that [[diamondoid molecular elements]] can only be synthesized by stiff tools made that themselves are made from [[diamondoid molecular elements]]. The [[incremental path]] avoids circular dependencies by continuously changing the [[method of assembly]] from self assembly to [[positional assembly|stereotactic control]]. ([[Radical Abundance]] - page 190)

The [[direct path]] tries to use bigger already stiff but not quite atomically precise slabs of material to build stiff atomically precise structures (e.g. in MEMS-AFMs). This is not fundamentally impossible but a much steeper slope judging from the progress rates.

== Lots of ''relevant'' pathway entry (and exit) points worth starting to take ==
 
There is by no means a lack of places where invested work would clearly lead to progress that is specifically relevant to APM.

If one looks at the right places then one can find both:
* Lots of pathway-starts "signed" to lead to the target.
* Lots of pathway-ends "signed" to come from the start.
With this many starts and ends the existence and realistic archievability of at least one path connecting some start to some end is very very likely.

See main page: '''[[Most relevant R&D construction sites for progress in APM]]'''

= Using soft/compliant manomachinery to get to hard/stiff nanomachinery ASAP is hypocrisy - false =

No, it's just a practical approach. <br>
Ones usage of soft nanomachinery for a rapid [[bootstrapping|bootstrapping process]] does in no way invalidate the results of [[exploratory engineering]] which says (as a highly reliable prediction) that stiff nanomachinery (A) is possible and (B) will (if ever enough focus and effort is put in for it to be built) be capable of outperforming soft nanomachinery by orders of magnitude in pretty much all regards.

It seems that currently there are more pathway entry (and exit) points via an [[incremental path]] approach rather than there are pathway entry (and exit) points for a [[direct path]] approach.  
That is, it seems as if current technology is just not ready yet to make a a big sudden leap forward. <small>(Side-note: This may be a good thing, considering stability of world economy and such.)</small>

Using to a large (but not exclusive) part soft nanomachinery to get to stiff nanomachinery ASAP is thus the natural and most productive thing to do.

'''On the other hand:''' <br>
Using soft nanomachinery without a clear focus towards stiff nanomachinery will
not automatically lead to stiff nanomachinery (at least not in any reasonable timespan).
So arguing that there is already effort in soft nanomachinery and thus if stiff nanomachinery is possible, 
we will end up there eventually anyway, is a ''very'' bad approach.

= Almost everything will be buildable - often misunderstood =

* Moved to: [[Every structure permissible by physical law]]
* More on: [[The defining traits of gem-gum-tec]]

In particular organic matter like food, replacement organs, and chain polymers likes today's plastics are not a target product of [[gem-gum technology]]. <br>
At least not a direct target.

== No food from gem-gum factories ==

Future [[nanofactory|gem-gum factories]] are not in any way intended to be usable for [[synthesis of food|food production]].
Structures out of solvated weakly linked non stiff proteins and lipid layers are a good example of "'''anti'''-[[diamondoid]]" materials.
Specialized devices will be capable of some limited form of [[synthesis of food]].

Attempting to create genetic twin tissue (avoiding the need for a complete scan) has the problem that 
information extraction from DNA to a spacial (not only typological) atom and molecule configuration is not straightforward to say the least.
There's not only the forward [[protein folding]] problem but also the yet unsolved riddle how body shape at all scales is encoded.

=== Why an perfect 1:1 copy of a steak is and will stay impossible ===

Attempting to create exact copies down to [[positional atomic presicion]] of an original tissue at this point seems ridiculously complex.
Some kind of ''very advanced'' scan ([[atomically precise disassembly]]) of the original would be needed to be performed in advance.
Trying to compress quasi-random atom configurations data hierarchically like in diamondoid APM systems 
would probably lead to strange unnatural compression artifacts.
The need to produce everything in a frozen state (ice crystals) might be a hard problem but one of the most minute ones.

=== Tasty "meta-food" may be creatable (given sufficient design effort in chain molecule mechanosynthesis capabilities) ===

Creating something edible by mixing pure synthesizes molecules together (quite a lot of sloppy molecules need to be synthesizable thus not something to expect early on)
together would produce something like an '''[[synthesis of food|advanced nourishment dough]]'''. One may be able to fake familiar food for the human senses or make something else heterogeneous and tasty but it's questionable whether we really desire to fool ourselves. At some ends deficiencies through lopsided nutrition may arise while at other ends food might get a lot healthier. A mixed nutrition with natural food will probably be best.

=== Competing with cheap potatoes is hard ===

'''Note:'''
Plants are already self replicating and thus cheap.
Most people just don't grow all of the plants they consume 
because they need space, sun, soil, and often industrial post processing.
Advanced (technical) APM will bring all the other stuff to the same or lower price level per mass.
Including means for easier plant breeding.

To be competitive with the cheap self replicating food that we eat today tissue construction via advanced [[mechanosynthesis|mechanosynthetic]] means
(e.g. a pie like this hoax [http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:155180]) must be quite a bit faster than biological machinery.
This may be expectable but at this point the highly diverse tool-tip chemistry at cryogenic temperatures and at the threshold of stability needed poses a prohibitively high barrier. That is barely any [[exploratory engineering]] can be applied here. 
Further some kind of hierarchical assembly that completely replaces the natural system would be needed.

=== Other sources of synthetic food ===

Also other technology branches (bio-nanotechnology ...) unrelated to APM may be able to produce edible tissues before of after we attain advanced APM capabilities.

= Less common and or less relevant misconceptions =

== Why not go build with nucleons when they are even smaller than atoms? ==

Simply stated: Because it is not possible. <br>
See: "[[Femtotechnology]]"

== Gemstones are inherently scarce and valuable (and will always be) - wrong ==

Many gemstones are made of very common elements. <br>
Making gemstones in a dirt cheap way is just a question of manufacturing capabilities. <br>
In this case capabilities in [[mechanosynthesis]].

See page: [[Abundant element]] <br>
On the page "[[Chemical element]]" the most abundant ones (in Earth's crust) are the ones that are not in brackets. <br>
There are plenty of combinations of very comon elements that make gemstones that make a very good structural base material. <br>
See: [[Base materials with high potential]]

== Gemstones are inherently brittle - wrong ==

(Or: One can't make soft materials from diamond - wrong)

What makes gemstones brittle are faults.

Faults are unavoidable in macroscopic gemstones.
* Todays (2017) synthetic gems have faults right from birth due to their thermodynamic production route.
* Tomorrows [[mechanosynthesis|mechanosynthesized]] gems will quickly gain faults through natural ionizing radiation originating from the environment (or even from within in the likely case that radioactive isotopes where included)

Faults are with a very high rate avoidable in nanoscale gemstones ([[crystolecule]]s) though.
Most of a whole lot of identical crystolecules are perfectly flawlwess.
Due to lack of any flaws these crystolecules are bendable to a pretty high degree.
Well, not as extreme like rubber (several 100%) but still easily up to a two digit percentage range.
A macroscopic block composed out of interlocking crystolecules does catch the cracks of the few unavoidably broken crystolecules at the clean unconnected borders between crystolecules. 
This makes the macroscopic block much less brittle than a single crystal. 
(Side-note: Crystolecules do not only feature a perfectly flawless interior but also atomically precise surfaces.)
Adding a more sophisticated metamaterial structure allows even [[elasticity emulation|emulation off rubber like properties]] (reversible strainability to several 100%) but with much higher tensile strength (and heat resistance).

== APM can make precious metals from dirt - wrong ==

APM is all about chemistry. Well, [[unnatural chemistry]] but that's not the point here.
The point is that chemistry cannot make or change (transmute) elements. 
(See "[[femtotechnology]]" for more details why).

Elements can only be made with nuclear technology (which are necessarily macroscale power-plants). 
This is called (nuclear) transmutation. It is (and likely will remain) way too inefficient to be economic.
A better option may be to get scarce elements from space (asteroid mining) in case they really will be needed in great amounts.<br>
Side-note: Not that its important in face of the other problems but, unlike chemical APM, nuclear technology seems to be fundamentally statistical in nature. 
At least if one does not want to go to [[Nuclear_fusion#Highly_speculative_one_try_one_hit_fusion|extremely speculative areas]].

Of course it will be possible to [[APM and nuclear technology|use APM to build nuclear power-plants in great numbers]]. 
But this is an entirely different topic.

== Diamond has a much lower density than silicon (which has identical structure) - wrong ==

Quite the opposite actually - diamond is pretty heavy for its volume:
* Diamond: 3.5–3.53 g/cm<sup>3</sup>
* "(Diamond+Silicon)/2" ~= Moissanite: 3.218–3.22 g/cm<sup>3</sup> (heavier than the average density)
* Silicon: 2.3290 g/cm<sup>3</sup>
* Quartz: 2.65 g/cm<sup>3</sup> (denser than silicon although there are voids and lighter oxygen interspersed - how??)

== Related ==

* [[Common critiques towards atomically precise manufacturing]]
* Some of the trapdoors listed here are known for a long time now. They old [[Engines of Creation]] has some of them pretty early on in the introduction. Listed there are ... {{wikitodo|add list}} 

[[Category:General]]

== Table of contents ==

__TOC__