3 ms·
Doesn't nature have a lot of inherent stochasticity down at the molecular level that makes it very difficult to do positional, precise molecular manufacturing,
by eli_gottlieb 11y ago
Doesn't nature have a lot of inherent stochasticity down at the molecular level that makes it very difficult to do positional, precise molecular manufacturing, due to everything jittering around randomly?
- kanzure 11y agoCorrect, but you can still get binding-specific behavior: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ms_ehUVvKKk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ms_ehUVvKKk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_n0Ij3K_Ho https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_n0Ij3K_Ho https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jml8CFBWcDs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jml8CFBWcDs
- gene-h 11y agoWell if you have stiff enough molecules, then the distance a given molecular structure moves due to thermal fluctuations can be smaller than an angstrom. In addition, if one cools said system down, thermal fluctuations become less of a problem. Actually assembling individual atoms together to make stuff is still very much an unsolved problem. Freitas' work on mechanosynthesis tooltips shows that we may need to control more than just position to precisely react atoms and that 'fat fingers' is still very much a problem.
- anonmeow 11y agoThe ribosome, DNA replication complex and ATP-synthase (and other complex enzymes) qualify as precise molecular manufacturing, if you relax the definition a little. Ribosomes are already being engineered, see expanded genetic code. How far could we go by modifying existing biological molecular machines? Probably quite far.
- eli_gottlieb 11y agoThat's true, but those all work precisely by taking advantage of thermodynamic jitter to get things done.