X-Message-Number: 20988
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 06:57:31 -0500
From: Thomas Donaldson <>
Subject: CryoNet #20972 - #20980

For Michael Price:
If I understand the background of the debate which you and Bob Ettinger
are now engaged in, Bob was not arguing with you about the current
theories of quantum mechanics at all. He was looking at those theories
more generally. Today's quantum mechanics says that electrons have no
more than a small finite list of characteristics. But then quantum 
mechanics and relativity continue to conflict, and who is to say
what physical theory will succeed them and what it will say about
electrons? Telling Bob Ettinger about the special features of 
today's quantum mechanics just doesn't answer his concerns.

For Henri Kluytmans:
I believe I pointed out that chemists were already studying ways to
make hydrogen more compressed and more manageable in a previous 
message. Think borohydrides.

As for nanotechnology, living systems can only be used so far. They
do not extend to the systems you (or NANOSYSTEMS) envision. In 
particular, they operate by chemistry, though a finely "designed"
chemistry at that. There is no system to put atoms just where
(someone:who?) wants them to go because there is nobody making
such choices. It's not that they're random at all, but that
randomness turns out to  be GUIDED. Not all statistics follows a
bell curve.

Perhaps your NMT will someday really come, perhaps living things
when examined carefully will tell us why it will never come. Among
other points, if you have LOTS of molecules ways to use randomness
to change them to suit may turn out much more efficient than
devising special systems which move every one where you want it.

                Best wishes and long long life for all,

                     Thomas Donaldson

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=20988