X-Message-Number: 32949
Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 10:10:03 -0400
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <>
Subject: Re: The problem with nanotechnology
References: <>

Keith Henson <> wrote:
> [Nanosystems] *is* a hard read, but no harder than an advanced text
> on biology or computer design.

I tend to disagree a bit. You can get quite a lot out of the book
without a wide background, but it helps to know a lot from multiple
fields. You need about as much physics as a good undergraduate physics
major learns, a lot of chemistry (though again, not much more than you
learn as an undergraduate major who actually does well in their
classes), some computer science and a smattering of other fields (some
molecular biology for example).

I read the book the first time without a solid background and I had to
skim rather than actually following many of the arguments. Later I
returned to it with a much better background and it helped a lot as I
could actually verify most of the derivations and claims rather than
simply accepting them.

Getting the most out of the book demands more knowledge than one
usually receives in a single course of study at a university. Without
that, some portions will be opaque to the reader. It is not that
difficult for a smart person to get the needed background, it is just
not a breadth of background most people in the sciences happen to
have.

One exception may be among physical chemists who use computational
methods, who are forced to dip a toe into many of the needed
topics. The average synthetic organic chemist, on the other hand,
almost certainly can't pick up the book and follow it in detail, even
though they work in an area that is seemingly directly connected to
the topic. It is perhaps not a coincidence that the least well founded
criticisms of the book have come from organic chemists, while a number
of prominent physical chemists have been very supportive of the ideas.


Perry
-- 
Perry E. Metzger		

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=32949