Recording dreams

I've often thought that it would be very cool to be able to record dreams and then play them back and analyze them later. It appears that maybe that will be possible at some point. Awhile ago, I saw this article about how scientists have been able to extract images from the brain. The beginning of the article says:

Researchers from Japan’s ATR Computational Neuroscience Laboratories have developed new brain analysis technology that can reconstruct the images inside a person’s mind and display them on a computer monitor, it was announced on December 11. According to the researchers, further development of the technology may soon make it possible to view other people’s dreams while they sleep. The scientists were able to reconstruct various images viewed by a person by analyzing changes in their cerebral blood flow.

I was a bit skeptical of whether this could be for real so I consulted a friend of mine who has done research in a related field. Here is what he said:

The research is certainly for real, and I can see why it would work. That said, I'm a little bit skeptical about some of the extrapolation (say to reading dream images). The optic nerve heads into the visual cortex, and I think the individual nerves in the optic nerve bundle maintain a geometric configuration similar to the rods and cones on the back of the retina. So when the electrical signals for an image hit the visual cortex, there is going to be a fair amount of spatial localization. I'm guessing that there is then a pretty distinct brain activation footprint in the visual cortex when these stark black-and-white images are shown, yielding a strong correlation between an images shape and the "shape" of the activation pattern in the visual cortex. And that's what they are exploiting. Very cool.

Now take the case of extracting images from memory. I don't know how much involvement there is from the visual cortex in calling up an image from memory. If the visual cortex is involved in the same way as when the image is actually being viewed, then I believe it might be possible. If other areas of the brain are involved and not the visual cortex, I doubt there would be such a distinct "footprint" on an fMRI scan. (In other words, it isn't clear that thinking about an image of the letter "n" would activate a section of the brain in a distinct spatial pattern different from thinking about any other letter). (But maybe this has already been proved---it's not my area.)

On applying fMRI to the "reading" of people's emotions, that can totally work. There seem to be pretty distinct activation patterns for different rough emotions across the brain. As the technology gets better, we'll see a lot more of that.

Very cool stuff.

So perhaps I will be able to record my dreams someday. Not sure if that will be a blessing or a curse but it would certainly be very cool technology.

Periodic Table of Videos

I just read an article in the September 15, 2008 issue of Chemical & Engineering News about a project at the University of Nottingham called the "Periodic Table of Videos" (official site, YouTube channel). The series of 130 videos was put together to introduce different elements and describe their properties and uses. Here is an introductory video:



One Nobel Laureate at Cornell described the video collection this way: "Poliakoff and his able codemonstrators make the periodic table come alive with the best understated British humor - they are real nerdy-sexy." Who doesn't love "nerdy-sexy". =)

LDS Church and DNA research

Last night, my brother-in-law DE asked me about DNA research and whether it supports - or undermines - the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. I've never looked into the topic so I didn't have an opinion on it. As a follow-up, DE sent me two articles - one article from the USA Today and one article from the LA Times. Both of the articles are a couple of years old and were prompted by a book that was being published at the time. I just read both articles and they are interesting. It would appear that some members - particularly those in Central and South America and the South Pacific - find this research problematic to their faith since it contradicts what they have been taught in the past. For me, I have to admit that scientific evidence is not central to my faith so I'm not terribly concerned about these findings. It doesn't affect my belief in the Book of Mormon or any other part of the Church. I assume there is some perfectly reasonable answer to all of this and that we'll know it in the fullness of time. In the meantime, we should acknowledge this is an area that isn't clear-cut, one way or the other, and be willing to live with some ambiguity. Obviously, that's easier for some people than others. As in everything else, God has a perfect knowledge of all things (including the exact ancestry and progeny of people in the Book of Mormon, the other inhabitants of those geographic areas, etc). So, if we want to know answers to questions such as "should I continue to be a member of this Church in the face of these studies" or "is the Book of Mormon true", we can ask God in prayer and he will testify to the truth via the Holy Ghost. That is a blessing that we all have in our lives and one that I would encourage people to utilize more often.

The AstroWizard!

Tonight was Science Night at JD's school. They had the AstroWizard come in to talk about the solar system and to conduct various experiments (including various explosions). JD was totally into it and I really enjoyed the event as well. Even though the guy was talking to a bunch of elementary school kids, he weaved in a bunch of additional information that was really interesting (and advanced) for the adults as well. What struck me the most was the AstroWizard's obvious passion about science and astronomy. He really brough the subject alive through his enthusiasm. He loved this subject so much that he couldn't resist sharing it with other people. Sometimes I wish I had a subject that I was equivalently passionate about that I could share with the world; my version of the AstroWizard solar system presentation or the Al Gore climate change presentation. Although it doesn't have a singular focus, I suppose this blog kind of falls into that category - but not really. At any rate, bravo AstroWizard on a great performance tonight!

A stairway to heaven?

A friend of mine sent me this article from the Economist. It's about a scientist at UCLA who has an idea about how to transport large amounts of CO2 out of the atmosphere into outer space. Hopefully he'll submit the idea to the Virgin Earth Challenge and win the $25 million to do this for real (assuming the science is actually sound). Regardless, reading stuff like this does give me hope that we'll find solutions for global warming if we have enough really smart people work on the problem.

The Language of God

I just finished reading an excellent book called The Language of God (also see this interview in the SF Chronicle). The author was the head of the Human Genome Project and attempts in his book to reconcile science and religion. In particular, he focuses mainly on the debate around Darwin's theories of evolution. Collins supports a position called theistic evolution (or what he calls BioLogos). Specifically, a typical version of this worldview rests upon the following premises:

1. The universe came into being out of nothingness, approximately 14 billion years ago.
2. Despite massive improbabilities, the properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life.
3. While the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, once life arose, the process of evolution and natural selection permitted the development of biological diversity and complexity over very long periods of time.
4. Once evolution got under way, no special supernatural intervention was required.
5. Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes.
6. But humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the Moral Law (the knowledge of right and wrong) and the search for God that characterizes all human cultures throughout history.

Collins goes on to say:

If one accepts these six premises, then an entirely plausible, intellectually satisfying, and logically consistent synthesis emerges: God, who is not limited in space or time, created the universe and established natural laws that govern it. Seeking to populate this otherwise sterile universe with living creatures, God chose the elegant mechanism of evolution to create microbes, plants, and animals of all sorts. Most remarkably, God intentionally chose the same mechanism to give rise to special creatures who would have intelligence, a knowledge of right and wrong, free will, and a desire to seek fellowship with Him. He also knew these creatures would ultimately chose to disobey the Moral Law.

This view is entirely compatible with everything that science teaches us about the natural world. It is also entirely compatible with the great monotheistic religions of the world. The theistic evolution perspective cannot, of course, prove that God is real, as no logical argument can fully achieve that. Belief in God will always require a leap of faith. But this synthesis has provided for legions of scientist-believers a satisfying, consistent, enriching perspective that allows both the scientific and spiritual worldviews to coexist happily within us. This perspective makes it possible for the scientist-believer to be intellectually fulfilled and spiritually alive, both worshipping God and using the tools of science to uncover some of the awesome mysteries of His creation.

In the course of making his case for BioLogos, the author also provides descriptions and counter-arguments to atheism, creationism, and intelligent design. Earlier in the book, he also covers topics like the Big Bang and the origin of the universe.

It would take too much time to summarize all of the author's points here - and I'm probably not doing justice to them with the limited excerpts above. But I found this book really interesting and I would highly recommend it to others who have ever tried to reconcile whether science and religion are compatible with one another. I certainly believe that they are and reading this book helped bring a number of those views into tighter focus.

The Science of Happiness

I just read an article in the January-February issue of Harvard Magazine called "The Science of Happiness". Apparently "positive psychology" is a new and fast-growing field, although some like Daniel Gilbert (author of Stumbling on Happiness) "don't think psychology needs a movement ... probably 85% of the ideas are worthless, but that's true everywhere in science." As I was reading through the article, I marked three passages that I thought were interesting:

Environs, too, affect mood. Settings that combine “prospect and refuge,” for example, seem to support a sense of well-being. “People like to be on a hill, where they can see a landscape. And they like somewhere to go where they can not be seen themselves,” Etcoff explains. “That’s a place desirable to a predator who wants to avoid becoming prey.” Other attractive features include a source of water (streams for beauty and slaking thirst), low-canopy trees (shade, protection), and animals (proof of habitability). “Humans prefer this to deserts or man-made environments,” Etcoff says. “Building windowless, nature-less, isolated offices full of cubicles ignores what people actually want. A study of patients hospitalized for gall-bladder surgery compared those whose rooms looked out on a park with those facing a brick wall. The park-view patients used less pain medication, had shorter stays, and complained less to their nurses. We ignore our nature at our own peril.”

“We evolved in a much different world, with much less choice and no sedentary people,” Etcoff continues. “We didn’t evolve for happiness, we evolved for survival and reproduction.” For this reason, we are sensitive to danger. “Pleasure and the positive-reward system is for opportunity and gain,” Etcoff explains. “And pleasure involves risk, taking a chance that can override some of your fear at that moment.”

Happiness activates the sympathetic nervous system (which stimulates the “flight or fight” response), whereas joy stimulates the parasympathetic nervous system (controlling “rest and digest” functions). “We can laugh from either joy or happiness,” Vaillant said. “We weep only from grief or joy.” Happiness displaces pain, but joy embraces it: “Without the pain of farewell, there is no joy of reunion,” he asserted. “Without the pain of captivity, we don’t experience the joy of freedom.”

I've seen a couple of authors make the distinction between happiness and joy before. I've also heard authors argue that we can't appreciate what's good in our lives within having some bad stuff for contrast.

There was one other passage from Daniel Gilbert that was thought-provoking:

The reason is that humans hold fast to a number of wrong ideas about what will make them happy. Ironically, these misconceptions may be evolutionary necessities. “Imagine a species that figured out that children don’t make you happy,” says Gilbert. “We have a word for that species: extinct. There is a conspiracy between genes and culture to keep us in the dark about the real sources of happiness. If a society realized that money would not make people happy, its economy would grind to a halt.”

That last sentence is pretty interesting. If people weren't interested in making more than a bare minimum amount of money, would capitalism still be able to operate or would it fall apart?

I wonder where all this research will take us - or whether it will be a passing fad with not much to show for itself 10-20 years from now.

Blue skies

There was a brief AskMarilyn in today's PARADE magazine asking "My daughter, who lives near Palm Springs, California, says her sky is bluer than my sky in Portland, Oregan. Can that be?" The answer is:

Yes: Sky color - or "sky transparency" - depends on many factors, among which is humidity. And you know that Portand is a teensy bit more humid than Palm Springs! Consider the brilliant blue sky of a cold, dry winter day compared to the whitish look of the sky on a muggy day in summer. Residents of Palm Springs enjoy a great many low-humidity, sunny days.

So, I suppose while the grass may not be greener on the other side, the sky may indeed be bluer in California compared to where you live. =)

Faith & Reason

In one of my mother-in-law's family letters, she mentioned a Bill Moyers series on PBS called Faith and Reason. Specifically, she talked about an interview she'd seen with Sir John Houghton. I just watched it and found it quite interesting. A good use of 26 minutes. Two things stuck with me. First, Houghton said that, as a scientist, he thinks it's important to be able to say "I don't know". As a believer, it's also important to be able to say "I don't know". Lack of specific knowledge does not invalidate a particular scientific or spiritual belief. Second, Houghton had an interesting idea that God may exist in a fifth dimension beyond space and time. In that sense, God could be anywhere and everywhere in space and time simultaneously. An interesting concept and one that isn't incongruent with my current world view.

To the extent you're interested, there were 11 other people interviewed in Bill Moyers' series (see portraits).

Invisible soccer ball

I was reading parts of the book The God Particle a little while ago. Leon M. Lederman (a Nobel prize winner) wrote the book as an argument for the construction of particle accelerators that could find a Higgs boson - a hypothetical particle that might hold a key to the subatomic world of quarks and leptons. There was one excerpt regarding an "invisible soccer ball" that particularly struck me. It is fairly lengthy so I created a separate page for the excerpt rather than include it here - but definitely check it out if you have interest. The except concludes with the following observation:

This is an extended metaphor for many puzzles in physics, and it is especially relevant to particle physics. We can't understand the rules (the laws of natures) without knowing the objects (the ball) and, without a belief in a logical set of laws, we would never deduce the existence of all the particles.

The same could be said about religion and the existence of God. I continue to believe that science (and the scientific method) has much to teach us about our search for God - and vice versa.

Pi

I was recently in NYC for a couple of days and got to catch up with some old friends from college, including PG. I've always referred to PG as an "enigma". The guy totally fascinates me. We were catching up over drinks and the conversation eventually turned to PG's hypothesis that pi is a dimension rather than a number. It has always bothered him that π has an infinite number of digits and cannot be calculated precisely. Per the Wikipedia, "the exact value of π has an infinite decimal expansion: its decimal expansion never ends and does not repeat, since π is an irrational number (and indeed, a transcendental number). This infinite sequence of digits has fascinated mathematicians and laymen alike, and much effort over the last few centuries has been put into computing more digits and investigating the number's properties. Despite much analytical work, and supercomputer calculations that have determined over 1 trillion digits of π, no pattern in the digits has ever been found." [Note: In case you're interested, this Web page shows π to 1,000,000 places.] This all got PG wondering whether π is actually its own dimension and we simply experience a projection of it in our three-dimensional environment (or four-dimensional space if you include time).

Admittedly, thinking of π as its own dimension is a little far-fetched. When I mentioned it to JK (another college friend), he asked me "is PG doing ok ... he's not taking drugs, right?" But there might be more to this than we immediately realize. I just finished watching a NOVA documentary called The Elegant Universe. My brother suggested that I check it out (thanks!). The documentary is about the field of string theory. String theory has attempted to unify general relativity with quantum mechanics. Some refer to it as a "theory of everything". One thing which is challenging about this theory is that it requires 10-11 dimensions - six of which form a Calabi-Yau shape. Many string theorists believe that fundamental constants derive their values from properties of these additional dimensions. Therefore, the idea that π is its own dimension is likely not correct but its curious properties might indeed be the result of additional dimensions that are projected onto the 3-4 dimensions that we (as humans) are most comfortable with. Food for thought.

Einstein and the Mind of God

I was reading through a different blog the other night as well - Potomac Current. Interestingly, it's written by a woman who lives in the D.C. area - where I grew up. Anyway, she had a good post called "Global Warming: Who Should We Believe?". But the one I really liked was called "Einstein and the Mind of God" - the best excerpts here:

There are those who believe that it strains credulity to think that Einstein would have thought in terms of the "mind of God." These observers disparage such a thought as a religious anthropomorphism of the kind that Albert Einstein criticized and abhorred. The truth about Einstein, however, is more subtle and more intriguing, as the truth often stubbornly insists on being. In fact, Einstein famously said that his entire effort in physics was in order to know the mind of God. Einstein, to be sure, also said that he did not believe in a personal God in the traditional sense and was interested in design rather than theology. He saw true religiosity as knowing that "what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms." When he was close to death, Einstein said, "I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details." Clearly, although he was not orthodox, he had no qualms about using religious phraseology to evoke the wisdom and beauty of the universe that is beyond measure ... [We should] teach children by example to respect both science, as the study of the measurable aspects of the universe for which we have physical evidence, and spirituality, as the appreciation of the awe, mystery, and meaning that lie beyond the grasp of our limited instruments and dull faculties.

I actually don't think science and religion are incompatible. The more I learn about the elegance math and science, the more I appreciate God. And even though you can't definitively prove or disprove the existence or nature of God (as you could with the validity of a scientific hypothesis), I don't think it diminishes religion or the role it can play in our lives. You can't definitively prove or disprove how someone is feeling, but it doesn't invalidate the existence or legitamacy of those feelings. It's just different from your traditional scientific inquiry.

Photosynthesis

I finished my second paper for my nanotechnology class today (download here). The paper is about biomimicry and photosynthesis - how man-made solar cells can benefit from a deeper understanding how nature has perfected photosynthesis over multiple centuries. I was surprised by how intricate it all is. I don't remember it being that complicated when I studied it in high school. At any rate, if you need some bedtime reading, check out the paper and let me know what you think.

A Number

My wife and I have season tickets to the American Conservatory Theater (ACT) in San Francisco. It's been an interesting experiment. I've really enjoyed the plays but it's a hassle to rush to and from the city because of the kids. Perhaps we'll circle back on season tickets again when the kids are older.

Today's performance, A Number, was particularly thought-provoking. The play was about a father who clones his son to have another chance at being a good father. His wife committed suicide and he was an alcoholic. Some time after his wife's death, the father sends his biological son (who is hard to handle) off but clones him first. He then starts over as a father with the cloned son - without realizing that the cloning company had created "a number" of additional clones without his knowledge. During the play, the father is confronted by his biological son and two of the clones.

In the context of genetic research and engineering, stem cell research, animal cloning, etc, the play raises a number of questions that are hard to answer. One hard question is whether the clone is the same or different person from the source. Does the clone have a soul? In the program, there is an essay by Brian Alexander called "Biology Is Not Destiny". In it, he points out:

There is no such thing as "exactly the same genetic person," especially when it comes to the hypothetical idea of cloning a human being in a lab. There are scientific reasons for this. For example, the mitochondria, the little powerhouse of cells, have a small number of their own genes. When a cell from a person to be cloned is placed into an egg to begin the process, that egg will not have the same mitochondrial DNA as the mother's egg used to conceive the original person. Second, the way in which genes are switched on and off, epigenetics, varies according to many, often unknown circumstances, including our environment. And of course, a clone would probably not gestate in the same mother and certainly not at the same time. In other words, identical twins would be closer genetic copies than any lab-created human clone could ever be. Yet even they soon diverge genetically in small ways. We are all unique.

Assuming all this is true, it would seem that the clone would be his or her own person and have their own soul.

Another interesting question raised by the play is the influence of nature vs nurture on the type of person someone becomes over time. In chaos theory (see this post), one property of chaotic dynamics is sensitivity to initial conditions. This means that two points in a chaotic system may move in vastly different trajectories in their "phase space" even if the difference in their initial configurations is very small. The systems behave identically only if their initial configurations are exactly the same. So, from a nature perspective, the very slight genetic differences described by Alexander could lead to very different outcomes later in life. I think it's also fairly obvious (at least to me) that even if a person is genetically predisposed to be excel in a particular area, nurture plays a big role in whether the person will actually achieve that potential (or go in an entirely different direction).

The last important question I'll mention is whether it makes sense to clone a human being or pet when they pass on. When we lose someone or something that is important to us, it's very tempting to want to bring them back or to have another chance to right previous wrongs. It's hard to argue against the desire. But, if Alexander is correct (and I assume he's done proper research), you can't literally bring that exact person or thing back. You'd be bringing back someone that is substantially similar (at least genetically) but it's an entirely different person. Also, from a spiritual perspective, if you believe that everything happens for a reason (see this post), it was that person's (or pet's) proper time to go - even if it doesn't make sense at the time.

Anyway, lots of interesting questions raised by this play. I don't claim to have any real answers but those are some thoughts to consider.

Emergence

It's interesting to see the unexpected connections that you form between your different interests. In response to this post regarding everything happening for a reason, my brother suggested that I look into chaos theory (see Wikipedia along with this excellent brief introduction). In mathematics and physics, chaos theory describes the behavior of certain nonlinear dynamic systems that under certain conditions exhibit a phenomenon known as chaos. Among the characteristics of chaotic systems is a sensitivity to initial conditions (popularly referred to as the butterfly effect). As a result of this sensitivity, the behavior of systems that exhibit chaos appears to be random, even though the system is deterministic in the sense that it is well defined and contains no random parameters. Examples of such systems include the atmosphere, the solar system, plate tectonics, turbulent fluids, economics, and population growth.

The butterfly effect is particularly interesting. The phrase refers to the idea that a butterfly's wings might create tiny changes in the atmosphere that ultimately cause a tornado to appear (or, for that matter, prevent a tornado from appearing). The flapping wing represents a small change in the initial condition of the system, which causes a chain of events leading to large-scale phenomena. Had the butterfly not flapped its wings, the trajectory of the system might have been vastly different. On some level, this isn't all that different from my idea that seemingly random things happen in our lives sometimes since they serve some greater purpose (that is unknown to us at the time but has ripple effects within and across people's lives).

In the context of nanotechnology (see this post), this got me thinking about the concept of emergence. Size matters much more with nanotechnology than most other fields since many of the properties that apply at the macroscale do not apply at the nanoscale. Ratner describes cutting a cube of gold into smaller and smaller pieces. He observes that:

“All the gold bricks’ physical and chemical properties will be unchanged. This much is obvious from our real-world experience – at the marcoscale chemical and physical properties of materials are not size dependent. It doesn’t matter whether the cubes are gold, iron, lead, plastic, ice, or brass. When we reach the nanoscale, though, everything will change, including the gold’s color, melting point, and chemical properties. The reason for this change has to do with the nature of the interactions among the atoms that make up the gold, interactions that are averaged out of existence in the bulk material. Nano gold doesn’t act like bulk gold.”

Ratner further points out that the “coupling of size with the most fundamental chemical, electrical and physical properties of materials is key to all nanoscience.” With the Big Bang, particles of energy and atoms were created with certain properties that govern all larger building blocks and processes of life on Earth. Atoms combine to form molecules, molecules combine to form molecular networks, and so on up to the planet’s ecosystem. With each new level of atomic construction, new properties and interactions emerge that did not exist at the previous level (but are governed by the properties of the preceding levels). One way to think about this is as a complex system – specifically “a system whose properties are not fully explained by an understanding of its component parts. Complex systems consist of a large number of mutually interacting and interwoven parts, entities or agents.” In response to the complexity of the interactions that take place at each level of nature, various (layered) disciplines have emerged: math as operating system of the universe, physics as the universe in motion, chemistry as physics in motion, biology as molecular networks, and ecology as interconnected networks.

Within this context, one interesting concept is scale-free networks. According the Wikipedia, “a scale-free network is a specific kind of complex network [in which] some nodes act as ‘highly connected hubs’ (high degree), although most nodes are of low degree.” One important property of scale-free network is that they are self-similar – meaning each part of the network is “exactly or approximately similar to a part of itself”. One example of a self-similar structure is a fractal. As the Wikipedia says, “in colloquial usage, [a fractal] denotes a shape that is recursively constructed or self-similar, that is, a shape that appears similar at all scales of magnification and is therefore often referred to as ‘infinitely complex.’” Many objects within nature including clouds, snowflakes, mountains, river networks, and systems of blood vessels have been shown to be fractal in nature. (Sound familiar? Fractals are also important in chaos theory!)

This is not surprising, however, given that all of these macrostructures are built up of atoms. In studying the connectedness of the Web, physicist Albert-Laszlo Barabasi and his colleagues at the University of Notre Dame “found that the probability p(k) that a node in the network connects with k other nodes was, in a given network, proportional to k^−γ. The degree exponent γ is not universal and depends on the detail of network structure. Numerical values of the exponent γ for various systems are diverse but most of them are in the range 2 < γ ≤ 3.” Within the world of atoms, the maximum electrons in the nth shell is computed as 2n^2. Atomic valence dictates possible chemical reactions, chemical reactions drive biological functions, and so on. Nature becomes an “infinitely complex” system that “appears similar at all scales of magnification” and is ultimately governed by fundamental properties at the atomic and subatomic level. (Note: The connection between atomic valence and the properties of scale-free networks is potentially a stretch on my part but an interesting one in my opinion) Many people think science and mathematics are at odds with religion. They think science and math make God irrelevant. I actually think they could be helpful in terms of understanding how God operates and interacts with us in our daily lives. When you look at how nature operates and how elegant mathematics is, it's hard for me to believe that God doesn't have a hand in it. It's just all too perfect to be that way by chance (or even things like natural selection). Bringing all this together, two interesting questions to think about are: (1) If different properties emerge as you put more and more atoms together, what properties emerge as you put more and more people together? How are these properties influenced through a combination of God's will/plan and human free will? and (2) Even though life seems random and chaotic, could it really be "deterministic in the sense that it is well defined and contains no random parameters"? Can chaos theory help us better understand the nature of God's relationship with man?

Nanosolar

I'm taking another online course through Foothill College. This time the topic is nanotechnology. The Wikipedia states that "nanotechnology comprises technological developments on the nanometer scale, usually 0.1 to 100 nm [1nm = one billionth of a meter or the width of approximately ten hydrogen atoms] ... Nanotechnology is any technology which exploits phenomena and structures that can only occur at the nanometer scale, which is the scale of several atoms and small molecules." The course overview defines nanotechnology as "the study, design, creation, synthesis, manipulation, and application of functional materials, devices, and systems through control of matter and energy at the nanometer scale". And the United States' National Nanotechnology Initiative (per Glenn Fishbine) defines it as follows: "Research and technology development at the atomic, molecular or macromolecular levels, in the length scale of approximately 1 - 100 nanometer range, to provide a fundamental understanding of phenomena and materials at the nanoscale and to create and use structures, devices and systems that have novel properties and functions because of their small and/or intermediate size. Nanotechnology research and development includes manipulation under control of the nanoscale structures and their integration into larger material components, systems and architectures. Within these larger scale assemblies, the control and construction of their structures and components remains at the nanometer scale."

Nanotechnology sits at the nexus of physics, chemistry, biology, material science, computer science, and many other scientific and technical disciplines - its multi-disciplinary nature is a distinguishing characteristic of nanotechnology. As Ratner points out, "the interdisciplinary nature of nanotechnology may explain why it took so long to develop. It is unusual for a field to require such diverse expertise. It also explains why most new nano research facilities are cooperative efforts among scientists and engineers from every part of the workforce."

At a business and economic level, the worldwide annual industrial production in the nanotech sectors is estimated to exceed $1 trillion ten to fifteen years from now and will require about 2 million nanotechnology workers (according to M.C. Roco ,Chair, WH/NSTC/Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology Subcommittee (NSEC), and Senior Advisor, NSF). Nanotechnology has applications in a variety of fields including semiconductors, electronics, energy/power, and life sciences. Many people believe that nanotechnology will have an equivalent or greater impact on society in the years to come than computers and telecommunications have had in the last three decades. The NNI has even dubbed it "The Next Industrial Revolution"

My interest in nanotechnology stems from wanting to help solve the global energy crisis and save the planet from the continued effects of global warming (see this post or this one). One area of research and commercial application that is especially interesting to me is solar cells. For my midterm paper, I did a technology review of solar cell technology and a local startup company called Nanosolar (paper available for download in PDF format). Nanosolar, along with a handful of other companies, are trying to apply nanotechnology and manufacturing process innovations (such as roll-to-roll printing) to dramatically drive down the cost of solar cells while either maintaining or improving their current power efficiency. We all need Nanosolar (or some other company in this space) to succeed. By 2050, carbon dioxide levels will be roughly three times pre-industrial levels and will only level-off if we can generate approximately 15 terawatts of energy (roughly the entire worldwide energy production today!) from non-carbon sources. That's a tall order and pretty soon I suspect I'll be working more directly on making it a reality.