n8243274@unicorn.cc.wwu.edu (steven l. odegard) (01/12/91)
The micro-revolution has enabled the common person to posses programmable control over information. I would envision the nano-revolution (if such becomes) as programmable control over chemistry. Life itself is an example of just such a control, but I do not equate the nano-revolution as the control over life. An efficient bridge between the Micro world and the Nano world must be developed if we are to use microtechnology to develop nanotechnology. I suppose that the scanning tunneling-electron microscope shows promise? -- --SLO 8243274@wwu.edu uw-beaver!wwu.edu!8243274 n8243274@unicorn.wwu.edu [I think you are trying to pack too much meaning into your terms. A microprocessor can't do any more than a big maniframe in yesterday's technology could; it's simply cheaper, so people can afford to put them to more uses. Thus microprocessors have invaded many aspects of everyday life. *That* is why they are considered to be a "revolution"; genetic engineering, a more breathtaking conceptual advance by far, hasn't achieved the widespread effect. Yet. But genetic engineering *does* represent control over life. Microcomputers will be used to develop genetic engineering, and nanotechnology, the same way they are used to do anything else: by manipulating information. As far as a physical bridge between sizes is concerned, the STM is not a micro-sized device; it is macroscopic in size. Other approaches, such as biochemistry, start with already molecular-sized tools. The sizes of the tools have little to do with the size of the transistors on the computer that's controlling them. --JoSH]