Lecture
Travkin, V.S., HSPT, Los Angeles
(citations)
......Having had birth in the depths of the microelectronics, the Nanotech already makes substantial influence over the variety of scientific and technical fields, while is based itself and is using the fundamentals of few of them still promising even better perspectives for development and achievements.
There are a number of definitions for a nanotechnology, while the basic content of them is the declaring the possibility to create and modify the objects of sizes 1-100 nm by the controlled means.
This determination is taken from the traditional literature on nanotechnologies. And this is itself is the half-truth. The half-truth because this definition is not taking into account at least another half- of the phenomena.
Because the nanotechnology of "objects," some of them are of the sizes of 1-100 nm does not consists or embraces only these "objects," and nothing more. But where are the subjects, the MEDIA to which these "objects" have to be incorporated? Where are these MEDIA and what is the role of these media by definition?
Meanwhile, this is in the heart of the phenomena. Objects, the huge amount (millions) of objects of 1-100 nm are being incorporated, inserted into the at least one more medium, often a homogeneous one. And without this incorporation there is no nanoeffects, nanomedium, nanomaterial, nanotechnology.
...
.....The common thing with all these Nanotech directions is that the unified theoretical and modeling basis can be adopted (at least, right now) for the phenomena of quantum mechanics character and nature, while the scales for those phenomena are of atomic and subatomic assessment.
At the same time, the common things for these media are also the incomprehensible phenomena of collective "averaged" character not describable with the apparatuses of quantum mechanics and atomic physics (molecular dynamics) on the small enough sizes of the media (material), nanodevices those taken as of the characteristic scale for these media continuum mechanics.
The quite important thing is that those phenomena, we all know - are exactly that golden treasure, for finding and exploring which there have been spending billions of dollars all over the world for nanotechnologies advancement. The reasons and models used today in
nanotechnologies for these experimentations phenomena explanation are completely
wrong and unacceptable. Those reasons and models are just don't work and as the
consequence the governments, investors, and researchers have been wasting the tremendous
amounts of money and time for little if not for nothing. ......
.....
It is impossible to having created a single nanotechnology today - without the explanation and method's knowledge of such processes and phenomena of collective behavior work and of the reasons why they exist in the nature from the beginning, and why they are absent in the same quantitative statements and with the same level of peculiar description while being modeled with the help of molecular dynamics codes, i.e. at the atomic scale description?
At the same time, those tasks which being solved as of the atomic physics and(or) molecular dynamics tasks are using the numerous adjusting variables, coefficients, being inherent to these fields of theoretical physics, for example,
to the Density Functional Theory (DFT) and being used today for the purpose of comparison
with variables exercised in homogeneous one scale physics, as we know it and as it being
taught in schools and universities. ......
....
Look at the hassle around the Carbon Nanotubes (CNT). So far it is mostly newer and newer experiments, while modeling attempts are done completely on the base of conventional atomic physics! But this is the heterogeneous devices and matter whatever scale one can choose?
....
The modeling and explaining the atomic physics phenomena after gigantic advancements (and assumptions) of the beginning of last century have not brought any substantial breakthroughs, explanations, new materials and new phenomena creation "based on atomic physics." But the atomic and nuclear arms and atomic power engineering. Remember, how and who had created these arms and this engineering? There were no computers even at those times! Why all of that is not helping now?
Why the atomic science has the ability and tries only to explain, but to a considerable extent has no power to forecast phenomena? As this is happening in other sciences, for example?
Why the fundamental materials science, which is based on atomic physics, has created no single outstanding material - by a forecast, by a purpose declared? .....
....
The whole body of new materials in physical materials science, as well as in chemistry and nanotechnologies as they being claimed today, has been created with help of the trial and error method, using the knowledge base and intuition brought from the variety of other sciences? But none has been using the design methods, as it is expected while exploring the possibilities of atomic physics and quantum mechanics. Why nobody asks this question?
The answer to this question exists - and this answer not favoring the contemporary atomic physics.
The atomic (and molecular dynamics) physics - still incapable of doing the correct description of
the Collective Phenomena, the phenomena of transferring from one scale to another, the transfer
from physics of one scale to physics of another scale, from atomic scale physics to continuum
mechanics physics, and vise versa, what we observe to be happening all over the life around us
and in technologies, especially in Nanotech.
And what is the main idea and the main substance for any nanotechnology to be created. ....
....
The molecular dynamics and atomic physics alone, their methods and simulation codes have not created a single material or nanotechnology yet! Yes, they are used with considerable degree of help for explaining this or that phenomenon. Still, they have not been creating forecasts or models for conception of new materials. And this should be understood!
....
...... So, why, predominantly nowadays, people, researchers applying for funding, trying to spend, and are spending money for nanotechnology research with help of that same instrument (atomic physics, quantum mechanics) which does not assist substantially, and is not used really in materials science and in chemistry for creation, design of new materials? I mean - these sciences are being used as the supportive, but not as the designing instruments. Otherwise, we all have known of substantial breakthroughs in materials science, but we have not ?
The answer is like this - because researchers do not know, not aware of another path to get money for nanotechnology developments. .....
....
Also, because researchers do not know, while those who knows do not understand that instrument in science, which had been created and already exists for these and pretty adjacent to these goals. ....