Category Archives: Uncategorized

Nanites – or – There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom

Nanite Attacking Cancer Cell
Nanite Heart Surgery

What if ultra-small robots could crawl into your skin? Literally. Like crawling into the space between your cells? What if they can grab some atoms and rearrange them? What if each robot had the smarts of a contemporary smart phone and could replicate? Your hero gets ripped apart by laser fire, arteries torn and gaping wounds.

How could your hero save herself? Simple. Grab a tube and squirt. Out come the nanites, propelling themselves within the hero’s body. Repairing the damage.

Such is the stuff of seeming magic. Remember Clarke’s Law?

So-oh. How real can this be? Could it?

Hold on. Let’s first check out how science fiction already uses nanites.

Nanites in Science Fiction

If your hero needs a wonder of technology to get out a scrape, she or he (or it) could use nanites. (Or the hero could use magic.) These little beasties can spread around and do all sorts of stuff. Heal the injuries as mentioned before. They could infiltrate the impenetrable.

Let’s say the locks of the castle gate are made of tougher-than-diamond graphene and your hero doesn’t have the key. She needs to sneak in to save Mr. Lucy. The hero whips out a thimbleful of power, and behold, the nanites get to work. She flings the powder onto the lock.

The beasties grab on the carbon lattice which makes up graphene and tear the sucker apart. Atomic bond by atomic bond. Invisible to the naked eye they crawl from link to link of the carbon atomic lattice. Voilà, the lock disintegrates. Mr. Lucy is saved.

For more: see Nanotechnology in Fiction. Fiction writers tend to use the nanite word rather than nanotechnology, nano-robots or whatever. In the link, nanite appeared fifteen times, the last time I looked.

Let’s hear from the pioneer of nanotechnology.

Introducing Doctor Feynman

“Hi folks, I’m Richard Feynman. I used to work on the Manhattan Project. I had a blip role in the Oppenheimer movie. For a second or so, I played the bongos while all us scientists were watching Oppie’s first atomic bomb explosion. Later, I wrote ‘There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom,’ suggesting folks directly manipulate atoms mechanically. Imagine swallowing the surgeon. I tell you, the surgeon will be a swarm of tiny-tiny bots healing you of injuries or disease. Sounds fantastic, doesn’t it?”

“Eh,” you may say. “Sounds too good to be true.”

“Hold on there, buckette or buckaroo. We’re just getting started. Wait until you hear what Drexler’s got to say.”

Drexler and the Engines of Creation

“Thank you for that introduction, Richard. Guilty as charged. I wrote ‘Engines of Creation.’ Hey, this work spun out the nanotechnolog gig. For instance:

  • Use carbon nanotubes to make smaller microchips.
  • Build better solar panels.
  • Attack cancer cells without harming the healthy.
  • Use nanofiltration to remove heavy metals from polluted water.
  • Make textiles that don’t stain or wrinkle.

“Sounds like the cat’s meow.”

“But beware the gray goo, … and the grey goo.”

“Eh, what’s that?”

“Click the links, Luke.”

“Fine, what next?”

Could Nanites actually exist?

Good question.

A Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry has questioned the practical feasibility of molecular assemblers as proposed by Drexler, leading to a big spat between the two parties. More a more in depth view, see https://www.hyle.org/journal/issues/10-2/bueno.htm. The argument generally pits mechanical robotic manipulation at the molecular scale versus chemical. Smalley states: “you don’t make a girl and a boy fall in love by pushing them together.” Alright, the secret to love is good chemistry.

This doesn’t mean molecular scale manipulation is impossible. Nature already does this by using biochemical reactions in living organisms. The question is whether mechanical systems can do so.

There appear to be limits to how much smaller can mechanical type systems can be miniaturized. Some suggest the solution lies in emulating portions of living beings. In nature, miniature organisms already operate effectively.

As far as I can tell, the debate is not yet settled. The Institute for Molecular Manufacturing (IMM) begs to differ. IMM argues that molecular assemblers and nanorobots are theoretically feasible.

The IMM refers also to another of Clarke’s Laws [internal link] (Italics are mine).

When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, the scientist is almost certainly right. When the scientist states that something is impossible, the scientist is very probably wrong.

Shall we conclude that Nanites are possible, but may require (natural and/or synthetic) biological mechanisms as well? Or are purely electromechanical nanites handwavium and unobtainium?

For more, dive into the following … https://philosophy.institute/philosophy-of-technology/perspectives-on-nanotechnology-debate/ https://peterallenlab.com/2022/05/28/distractions-drexler-smalley/

And finally, what does nano mean?

A nanometer is tiny-tiny small. Line up three water molecules side and side and the length approaches one nanometer. Line up four, the length exceeds one nanometer. A nanometer is one millionth of a millimeter. Nano derives from the Greek nanos for dwarf. Nano means billionth, more precisely, a billionth of a meter. Nana, on the other hand, may refer to grandmother.

Peter Spasov. Last updated Tuesday April 01, 2025

Magic and Clarke’s Third Law

What if an extraterrestrial could turn you into a sentient tree? Imagine how you might stand fixed upon a grassy knoll unable to move, always looking at the same place day after day, rain or shine (assuming you could see). Birds could roost upon you. Wind could rustle your leaves. Would you sense the birds and wind? How would your mind react during the day? Would you sleep at night? And dream? If so, what?

 “Sure thing,” you may say to me, “what have you been smoking? Tell me another fairy tale.”

How would you consider such a scenario? You may conclude: Must be fantasy, bro. It ain’t got the science to be science fiction.

Maybe so. But just wait a minute. Let’s say, you’re part of a group Neanderthals who managed to escape detection over thousands of years. Granted, this is a big stretch. Okay, let’s switch this around. Say time travel became possible, and you visited Europe at, say, 150,000 years ago. You’ve brought your e-bike, one of those fancy electrically powered mountain bikes some game hunters use such those blogged about here. Okay, I don’t hunt for sport but you get the idea. In this scenario you go for a ride. Eventually you encounter some Neanderthals. How would they regard your ability to ride around? Your appearance, your clothing, you riding your bike, would be a major shock, completely foreign to their world view. To the Neanderthals, you are magical.

This brings us to Clarke’s Third Law. Science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke wrote 2001: A Space Odyssey. The law states: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. If you brought your mobile phone and played your favorite (downloaded) cat video, the Neanderthal might wonder at the technology and the content. She or he may think: what’s the deal with cozying up to these mini cats? Do these strange visitors need some trepanning with a sharp pointed stick?

For the sentient tree scenario, on the other hand, needs more thought. First, would a sentient tree be possible? Second, could a scientist transform a normal human into such a tree? Let’s tackle the first.

Some scientists claim that trees can communicate with others in the same species by sending certain chemicals from root to root. However, other scientists claim the evidence isn’t conclusive. This is how science works.  Test the evidence and if other ‘peers’ think the evidence isn’t strong enough, they remain skeptical. Regardless, such tree-to-tree communication wouldn’t be a sign of sentience. Similarly with the claims of plants being capable of feeling pain, the evidence remains dubious. So, for this post, I’ll suggest that in our real world, trees aren’t sentient. But could they become sentient?

Trees, being plants, are able to photosynthesize, meaning to convert sunlight into the chemical energy necessary to fuel their metabolism. As for food, trees must absorb water and other chemicals from the ground using their roots. The transport of nutrients means going uphill against gravity. Trees don’t have hearts like we do, to pump said nutrients throughout their body. Instead they depend on a transpiration process. Essentially, water evaporation at the leaves causes a negative pressure which can pull water up from all the way down to the roots. As an aside, how tall can trees grow on Earth? By the way, the tallest height appears to be about 140 meters.

Think of what this mean in terms of being sentient or not? Sentience requires brains as far as we know, and brains use lots of energy. The human brain uses about 20% percent of the body’s energy and animal bodies use more energy than for plants because they have higher metabolism requirements. From this, we can conclude that a sentient tree would need significantly more energy than the currently non-sentient versions, in addition to a brain equivalent.

According to my admittedly simplistic calculations, a human could employ an advanced solar panel on each arm of about 60 cm square. The human ‘tree’ could stand up to expose the panels like a tree would expose leaves on its branches. This could theoretically work provided the panel efficiency was seventy two percent or more. The hypothetical panels would act like artificial leaves in order to convert the sunlight into the human’s need for oxygen and food. This doesn’t yet exist, but I argue it could in the future.

As an aside, prototype artificial leaves already exist. In this case, the sole function of the ‘leaf’ is to take carbon dioxide out of the air in order to cut down on greenhouse gases—and produce fuel. This technology has promise and could potentially expand to increased efficiency and produce other organic molecules required by our hypothetical tree-human hybrid.

Therefore, it’s reasonable to suppose a sentient tree could theoretically exist provided it had a brain and a pump to feed the brain with energy nutrients. Perhaps the person could become a plant-like being akin to the Venus Fly Trap but in an expanded form. This obviously is highly speculative but I would argue clever biohackers could create such a tree equivalent from a human. Please note this is a thought experiment because of ethical considerations.

Whether such a tree could evolve via natural evolution is another matter, and probably not—unless animals were wiped out. Food for thought here for you speculative fiction writers who might be reading this. But I will leave this aside for now to move on to point two. Could an advanced extraterrestrial transform a normal human into such a tree?

Point two is a tall order. It is one thing to biohack someone in a lab over a period of time, it’s another to sprinkle pixie dust or whatever that over a few hours or days transforms a human into a tree without any other intervention. In the lab scenario, surgeons may need to operate on the human.

“Eh,” you may say. “What could be this pixie dust? Sounds like magic.”

“Aha,” I may reply, “remember Clarke’s third law. Use a technology so advanced that, today; our smartest scientists can’t even understand it.”  

“Cop-out,” you may say, “Pure handwavium. Sounds like unobtainium.”

“Well, er, um, you may be right.” I shrug my shoulders with embarrassment. Then the metaphorical bolt of lightning strikes, red hot, searing red hot. (Enough with the melodrama you exclaim.) “Hey. How about nanites?”

Oh yes, the nanite word. How many stories have I read which employed nanites? Many. Hence, let us examine the nanite. Click the preceding link. Alas, that’s all I’ll give you for now. Stay tuned for a possible follow-up post.

And for the diehards, who want to see my calculations, try the download button.

Image Credits

This is a poster for Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.
The poster art copyright is believed to belong to the distributor of the film, Warner Bros., the publisher of the film or the graphic artist.

https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2018-08/22/16/asset/buzzfeed-prod-web-06/sub-buzz-24234-1534969658-5.jpg

Peter Spasov. Last updated Tuesday February 25, 2025