5

Context

Recently, scientists have began researching superatoms and supermolecules in depth. The premise is that existing, natural elements can be rearranged into clusters, in the lab, to exhibit properties they normal wouldn't - for example, "a siliconlike superconductor with the biodegradability of wood". Not only would these properties be unfeasible otherwise - but this substance has desirable engineering properties.

In a recent issue of Scientific American, this idea is listed as one of the "Ten Ideas That Will Change the World 2016" and is taken very seriously; this is not skepticism, this is a developing field.

What are the physical limits of this type of engineering?

Just how unnatural can your substance and its properties be if you explain it with this method?

Or, conversely, what are examples of the most extreme circumstances this can produce?

While I don't require a hard-science level of citation and calculation I would like actual scientific evidence. That evidence (or the lack thereof) can be cited, and thus this question is not limited to opinions.

Zxyrra
  • 20,581
  • 7
  • 60
  • 124
  • 3
    Handwavium is used in so many ways that answering your question is impossible. If it's real, it's real, everything is possible. If you want to ask about normal superatoms, these are so far from handwavium that use of the term is unjustified. – Mołot Nov 18 '16 at 00:59
  • Programmable matter has been discussed more than once here. Search for that term, and the name McCarthy. – JDługosz Nov 18 '16 at 01:15
  • @JDługosz McCarthy describes a very different programmable matter - stuff like manipulation of quantum dots, films around the substance, metabolizing substances, etc. and much of it is "this would work when we discover how to use it". I am describing a non-speculative, lab tested method of giving substances properties. – Zxyrra Nov 18 '16 at 01:36
  • @Mołot I'm not sure if this would fall under "normal superatoms" because the ones in these circumstances are engineered to act in certain ways. Still, your input would be very valuable as an answer - while a "no" isn't as exciting it still answers the question "could it happen" – Zxyrra Nov 18 '16 at 01:41
  • I think you have a valid question. Unfortunately, it's the references to handwavium that upset the apple cart. May I suggest edit the question to remove all references to handwavium and focus on superatom engineering. Usually handwavium is a 'magic' something to make whatever unrealistic thing work in an imaginary world. Since superatoms are real, the question is then about what superatoms can or can't do. Your comment to Molot suggests you may be interested in more exotic forms of superatoms. – a4android Nov 18 '16 at 03:31
  • @a4android That is a valid concern and I agree - removed all references. – Zxyrra Nov 18 '16 at 03:38
  • @JDługosz mentioned McCarthy & programmable matter. He wrote a book on the subject. Wil McCarthy, "Hacking Matter: Levitating Chairs, Quantum Mirages and the Infinite Weirdness of Programmable Atoms" (Basic Books, 2003). Yes, it is Wil with one 'l' & not a typo. – a4android Nov 18 '16 at 06:47
  • This question is unanswerable because you cannot prove a negative. Which means that these materials are only limited by the that which you as an author impose on them in your world that you has built. – MichaelK Nov 18 '16 at 09:31
  • @MichaelKarnerfors Not necessarily. And regardless this is not "do unicorns exist" it's "what are the physical limits of engineering superatoms" which can be answered with facts - not just "we can't prove it" – Zxyrra Nov 18 '16 at 12:33
  • @Zxyrra Was this supposed to be a joke? Insert polite but insincere public display of amusement here. Yes it is true that the maxim "You cannot prove a negative" is itself a negative and subject to not being provable. But that was not the question nor did my answer concern that. Nor did it concern unicorns in the tool-shed. For all practical intents and purposes of your question, it can be said that no-one here can prove the limitations of super-atoms / super-molecules. Because all it takes is that humanity discovers some new law(s) of nature to break our currently known limitations. – MichaelK Nov 18 '16 at 12:45
  • @MichaelKarnerfors Ignoring the "was this supposed to be a joke" "polite but insincere public display" bit which is not in the least bit constructive* - I am saying there are scientific limitations to all scientific questions that can be used to answer them. This is not a negative - I'm not saying "prove it doesn't exist" or "prove I'm not right" I'm saying "what does science allow" which seems to work on this site. – Zxyrra Nov 18 '16 at 22:56
  • @Zxyrra Well neither is it constructive to comment with a complete Non Sequiteur. As I said: for all practical intents and purposes of your question, no limits can be proven. Because the furthest we can get in that field is to provide proof with the laws of nature — and their practical applications — as we know them today. But what we find tomorrow may blow any such proof away. – MichaelK Nov 20 '16 at 13:26
  • 2
    @MichaelKarnerfors If every question on Worldbuilding SE took into account "what we find tomorrow" not a single physics or chemistry answer on SE would look the same. Proof with the laws of nature we know is all I need for an answer, and that is something that can be done. – Zxyrra Nov 20 '16 at 13:37
  • Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think @MichaelKarnerfors is pointing out that the question is very broad, a la "limitations". In the narrow sense size is a limiting factor. So then "what are the observable physical phenomena that we can measure from this phenomenon?", i.e. "give a collection of physical properties one might expect to observe when applying the concept". Or for example "how large can superatoms be before we lose those properties?". But generally the question "how far can we engineer this" may be over scoped. – Nolo Nov 21 '16 at 16:50
  • @Nolo From what I gathered the suggestions above weren't saying it's broad, just that it may not be answerable. If you have a way to narrow it down while preserving the meaning I will accept all edits – Zxyrra Nov 21 '16 at 16:54
  • @Zxyrra Do you have a specific example or objective for such engineering, as in "what kind of nanites can we build which rely on property X". Such a question may have a better shot at getting useful answers. Otherwise the general answers would likely be disconnected, pertaining to many different areas of engineering and types of problems to try to solve. In other words, superatoms exhibit the properties of atoms in a sense, it's like asking what we can engineer with atoms, albeit with additional properties. :) – Nolo Nov 21 '16 at 17:03
  • To be fair, I understand you would like to know what some of those limitations are and I agree that can be a useful QA, however, I can also see how that can get to be unwieldy here. – Nolo Nov 21 '16 at 17:05
  • I would suggest a series of questions on the topic with specific points of interest. – Nolo Nov 21 '16 at 17:07
  • @Nolo I would like to hear about that series of questions but do you know how we can move this to a chat? – Zxyrra Nov 21 '16 at 17:13
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. – Nolo Nov 21 '16 at 17:13
  • Why not go the whole hog! https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/a/86709/9392 – Fattie Jul 20 '17 at 23:20

1 Answers1

3

Welcome To the Real World

You need some kind of "handwavium infused into the atmosphere" if you want this to work without problem. (think "mind control")

Cost:

Money money money. Without currency, or some kind of resource that you can exchange for scientific equipment required to make handwavium

Pollution:

Boom! Handwavium is cheap to manufacture, but not without "lasting damage to ecosystems" and "causing mutations"

Legality:

You may think your biodegradable technomumblejumble carbide superconductors are cool, but the FDA2000 thinks otherwise. The economy could crash, and the rich who want to stay rich will sure as hell bribe some politicians to stop you.

Society:

Handwavium is against insert definitely real religious deity here. The book says that handwavium is bad, and that it is ungodly. A few "scientific" discoveries by religious fanatics suddenly prove that handwavium causes rare deseases, and could harm your loved ones.

Community
  • 1
10 Replies
  • 179
  • 5
  • Could you explain how "handwavium infused into the atmosphere" would be necessary to justify chemistry? I'm not sure I understand – Zxyrra Nov 18 '16 at 01:37
  • Is there any evidence that substances like these would "cause mutations" "damage ecosystems" "crash the economy" or "defy religious texts"? I appreciate the reply but I would like a bit of evidence – Zxyrra Nov 18 '16 at 01:39
  • @Zxyrra It's not about chemistry. Your biggest problem isn't the science. Your biggest problem is societies reaction to the science. – 10 Replies Nov 18 '16 at 01:39
  • It doesn't matter what the thing actually does. People make up all kinds of things for no reason at all. GMO's for example... They are super legit (excluding the whole legal bit with copyright and all that) and could help end starvation.... Yet for some reason they are said to cause cancer, and large groups of people seem to hate them. It won't take much for a high ranked person to think the scheme is fishy and just shut down production because of their assumption that it is bad – 10 Replies Nov 18 '16 at 01:40
  • Your question is also worded confusingly because I expected the question to be restated in the body, but instead what you really wanted was in the title. I'll make it more consise, so the next guy like who can't quite read properly understands more what you are asking. – 10 Replies Nov 18 '16 at 01:57
  • Context then question is a typical format on here; I can put the context under a different heading or in blockquotes if it helps – Zxyrra Nov 18 '16 at 01:58
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. – Zxyrra Nov 18 '16 at 02:04
  • Correction: The question pertains to the physical limitations of the phenomenon, i.e. the physical science aspect, not concerns related to social science. – Nolo Nov 21 '16 at 16:18
  • I'm going back through questions I haven't accepted answers for. I would like to accept this but it's outdated since the question has been thoroughly edited. If you edit this so it's consistent with the new version of the Q I will happily accept it. – Zxyrra Dec 11 '16 at 05:10
  • Who says that these things are not produced and resarched by "the rich", which will use this to become richer? – Buldelu Dec 18 '16 at 16:24