71750.2413@compuserve.com (Russell E. Whitaker) (12/22/89)
My first receipt of a sci.nanotech message was somewhat dismaying: > If you are a infinitely fined grained chaotic dynamic structure, then >freezing you isn't going to do much good. > > Otherwise you're a Turing machine, and might as well wake up in >hardware. > > BTW: anybody remember which issue of Sci. Am. had the cold quantum >chemistry article? Or as I like to call it "frozen rot". Turns out that >there is a minimum rate for every chemical reaction, regardless of how cold >it gets. > > Henry J. Cobb hcobb@walt.cc.utexas.edu To which was added by JoSH: >[If you are a infinitely fine-grained chaotic dynamic structure, then > a butterfly in Peking can change your whole life. There is good evidence > that our brains are chaotic (e.g. Paul Rapp's work) but if so, our > concept of personal identity must necessarily correspond to the attractor > and not to an individual microstate. > --JoSH] I assume that the above statements are drawn from theory put forth in books such as *Chaos: The Making of a New Science*. I haven't studied that field, so I don't feel qualified to make pronouncements. However, I think it only fair to say that no educated, sane cryonicist would dare claim that cooling to liquid nitrogen temperature stops all chemical reactions. Hugh Hixon wrote an excellent piece called "How Cold is Cold Enough?", a publication of the Alcor Life Extension Foundation (see my disclaimer below). He presents an argument for low-temp storage based on the Arrhenius Law, a statement of the dependence of (reaction) rate on temperature. ASCII doesn't allow that I use super(or sub-)scripts here, however: logk = logA -[ E(sub"a")/2.303RT ] where: k = the specific rate constant T = temperature A = frequency factor (related to steric factor and collisional freq.) E(sub"a") = activation energy R = universal gas constant Anyone who is interested can find the numbers in his or her old Chem 101 textbook. Take a quick look at the relationships above, however, and just plug in sample numbers for "T" and see the trend. What this boils down to (I didn't mean the pun: honest!) is that reactions at -79 degrees Celsius (194.15 degrees Kelvin for the above equation) occur at such a low frequency as to be unnoticable for the even VERY pessimistic suspension scenarios (e.g. slip into technological "dark ages" from world-wide neo-Luddite revival, and resultant millenia-delayed suspension, etc.). Today's most conservative estimates place the advent of nanotechnology between decades and a couple of centuries. 'Nuff said. Would Mr. Cobb care to present some real numbers, and equations, with maybe a statement or two of derivable theory? Oh, yes: but we ARE hardware, Mr. Cobb! I don't buy into vitalism, and don't see how (other than design differences) a carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen type-'a-guy has an intrinsic monopoly on life over a GeAs dude. And how can I tell (because of its very definition) that YOU aren't a Turing machine? How is that relevant? All aside, I'm glad to be on the sci.nanotech newsgroup. Thanks! Long Life and Liberty, Russell E. Whitaker 71750.2314@compuserve.com [Standard disclaimer: I am not a representative, agent, or officer of the Alcor Life Extension Foundation. All opinions stated herein are my own.]