# science fiction technology you see possible in the future and others not **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [June 19, 2015, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-fiction-technology-you-see-possible-in-the-future-and-others-not/722908 "2015-06-19T00:24:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Habeed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a587f6/32.png) [@Habeed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Habeed)\ **Post date:** [June 23, 2015, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-fiction-technology-you-see-possible-in-the-future-and-others-not/722908/41 "2015-06-23T22:10:14Z")
> [@Urbanredneck](#): > > I’m mixed on people being in long term hibernation or suspended animation as a way to manage space voyages of many years. > > While I could see how a person could be fed intravenously and have waste taken away by catheters, wouldn’t there muscles atrophy without some sort of exercise? The easiest fix would be to genetically modify the muscles or develop drugs that just prevent them from atrophying. The atrophying is a biological process like anything else, and there are molecular switches that control it. You could either develop a small molecule drug (a myostatin inhibitor would probably do it) or insert genes into the muscle fibers that stimulate one of hundreds of possible targets (google for gene doping, this works quite well in rats) ---
**Author:** ![sweat209](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc348/32.png) [@sweat209](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweat209)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2015, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-fiction-technology-you-see-possible-in-the-future-and-others-not/722908/42 "2015-06-24T22:50:38Z")
> [@Habeed](#): > > Teleportation of people - yet another thing you are badly misinformed on. It absolutely is possible to teleport people, even practical. Step 1 : mush their brain into a digital data file. Step 2 : send the multi-petabyte data file via a high speed communications link. If you have trouble with the “cloning” problem, have your brain transferred over a tiny piece at a time with no loss of continuity. (admittedly this is many orders of magnitudes harder than doing a transfer when your brain is “dead”, but physics allow it) > > You wouldn’t be sending over the position of every atom in a person. Just the state variables in their brain - things like how strong a particular synapse is. In a real human brain, the strength of a synapse is determined by the collective action of millions of separate atoms - but your digital model would track just a single number about 64 bits long for that. This is why it would be practical - we can send large multi-petabyte files over optical links right now. With the fastest optical links available with today’s tech, you could send a person’s mind-state in a few minutes. Their body is a much smaller file - either a copy of a biological genetic code (about 6 gigs) or the blueprints for a robot they can control. Scanning the person brain and uploading it to a computer or an artificial brain is not teleportation. Teleportation works on basics of dematerialization and rematerialization basic from matter to energy to matter again. Of any such object. > [@](#): > > Star Trek tricorder - you could build a diagnostic instrument that small or smaller. It would release trillions of nanoscale robots that would crawl over or inside the object, and the handheld device would simply communicate and power the robots via microwaves or EM induction. This would give you the kind of information the tricorder is capable of giving - each tiny robot would have nanoscale molecular sensors, etc, and would be able to detect an enormous number of things. What you taking about is nanotechnology and it is nothing like how the star trek tricorder works and this is even more scfi. For MRI ,x-ray or CT scanner you need a very big magnets and there is no possible way to shrink the device down or even in a handheld unit. All MRI and CT scanners are very big and very costly and there no way to shrink it down or bring the cost down. > [@](#): > > Star Trek tricorder - you could build a diagnostic instrument that small or smaller. It would release trillions of nanoscale robots that would crawl over or inside the object, and the handheld device would simply communicate and power the robots via microwaves or EM induction. This would give you the kind of information the tricorder is capable of giving - each tiny robot would have nanoscale molecular sensors, etc, and would be able to detect an enormous number of things. Having small nanobots circling the body is beyond today’s technology level. It is true in lab they have build small nanobots today. But the main problem holding this technology back is how do you get the nanobots to go to the area of the body you want it to go, get it to work and so there is no immune response or harm to the body. When all these problems are solved than nanobots can be used to bring chemotherapy drugs to the cancer target or performed surgery operation on clog arteries or heart surgery and other applications. But this technology still has long ways to go and probably 50 to 100 years out if you lucky. Unfortunately but technology is still in research stage at this time. Likewise small nanobots to clean up oil spills and chemical waste is long ways off. ---
**Author:** ![sweat209](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc348/32.png) [@sweat209](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweat209)\ **Post date:** [June 24, 2015, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-fiction-technology-you-see-possible-in-the-future-and-others-not/722908/43 "2015-06-24T23:22:31Z")
> [@Habeed](#): > > 1. No. I mean something like the nintendo 3DS except less ghosting and it would work no matter which way you hold the display or which angle you look at it. I have not seen any Hologram that shines laser or light that stop in mid air with out being in some inclosed device or looking through a display screen. Nothing like in star trek where it just shines out of the projectors in mid air. I hear of hopes in future where Hologram may use air bubbles that may work where the Hologram that shines laser or light and stop in mid air using air bubbles. Not sure how that would work. How air bubbles may get it to work. Or using plasma. > **[3-D haptic shapes can be seen and felt in mid-air](https://www.futuretimeline.net/blog/2014/12/4-2.htm)** > > 3D haptic shapes can be seen and felt in mid-air > **[Real Hologram Generates 50,000 Dots Into Mid-Air 3D Objects](https://bitrebels.com/technology/real-hologram-mid-air-projection/)** > > Developers at Aist and Keio University have finally cracked the secret of real hologram mid-air projection. This video shows their remarkable breakthrough. > [@](#): > > 1. With a laser propulsion rocket (google for “ablative laser propulsion”), the lasers stay on the ground. The gas turbines and solar panels powering them also stay on the ground. You would draw the gigawatts of power needed from the same electricity grid that powers entire nations, doing the launches at “off peak” periods when there is enough spare generation capacity. Depending on the country doing the launches, and the time of year, and where your substations were, you might need to purchase additional generators - you’d buy gas turbines. Yes, it would cost money per launch, but a lot less money - the cost of the fuel for existing rockets is 1% or less of the cost. I would think that laser propulsion rocket like any type of nuclear propulsion system to get payload into space would cost more than chemical propulsion to get payload into space. ---
**Author:** ![Habeed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a587f6/32.png) [@Habeed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Habeed)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2015, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-fiction-technology-you-see-possible-in-the-future-and-others-not/722908/44 "2015-06-25T19:21:12Z")
> [@sweat209](#): > > Nothing like in star trek where it just shines out of the projectors in mid air. > I would think that laser propulsion rocket like any type of nuclear propulsion system to get payload into space would cost more than chemical propulsion to get payload into space. It doesn’t have to stop in midair - it only has to appear that way to human vision. So a real holodeck, there would be these flat panels on every wall that do not appear to your eyes to be doing anything. In reality, they are emitting light, with perfect control of the exit angles of the photons, such that illusions of objects floating out in front of the panels would appear to you. You should think a little harder, then. Why do rockets cost so much money now? ---
**Author:** ![sweat209](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc348/32.png) [@sweat209](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweat209)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2015, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-fiction-technology-you-see-possible-in-the-future-and-others-not/722908/45 "2015-06-25T23:08:28Z")
> [@Ethilrist](#): > > out there now: > > star trek tricorder: “Through its sensor, and in a matter of seconds, the Scanadu measures heart rate, temperature, blood pressure, oxygen level and provides a complete ECG reading.” > [http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/12/tech/mci-scanadu-tricorder/](http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/12/tech/mci-scanadu-tricorder/) > > Possible: > . I had no idea they are working on a star trek tricorder!! This would not be true star trek tricorder has the true star trek tricorder would give scans and x-ray,CT scan and MRI read outs too. But if this limited star trek tricorder giving those read outs like measures the heart rate, temperature, blood pressure, oxygen level and provides a complete ECG and may be so some simple blood work in the future this would be step in direction. In 5 to 10 years we may have lab on a chip that can do some simple blood work on chip fat read out no wait for blood work. So in 5 to 10 years when you see your doctor may have lab on chip and star trek tricorder that could give more fast read outs in ER,walk in clinic or family doctor with out wait. At time being we have lot of diagnostic tools the problem is it is very costly and take lot of time to order it and get the information from it. The doctors have to order many different tests to get information what is or not wrong with your. The holy grail is one device or at at least two or three device that can give the doctor lots and lots of information that is fast and cheaply. The holy grail is to have x-ray,CT scan, MRI scan and other test on a tricorder this would be true tricorder.But at time being for it to work need very big very big megents and no idea how to shrink it down the x-ray,CT scan, MRI scan. And cost is other problem. No idea how to shrink it down or bring the cost down. If we had a true tricorder that can do x-ray,CT scan, MRI scan it would be so dirt cheap. > [@Ethilrist](#): > > out there now: > > star trek tricorder: “Through its sensor, and in a matter of seconds, the Scanadu measures heart rate, temperature, blood pressure, oxygen level and provides a complete ECG reading.” > [http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/12/tech/mci-scanadu-tricorder/](http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/12/tech/mci-scanadu-tricorder/) > > Possible: > > Cloning people. I think we can do it, we’re just choosing not to, so I’m putting this in the “possible” category. Note that I’m not talking about copying memories, but just creating a genetic duplicate which would have to grow naturally from infancy. > > Not: > > Fusion. We’ve been 10 years from this for too long for me to take it seriously. > Flying cars. Way too high of a power requirement for way too little benefit, plus that business of having to take off & land at an airport negates most of the bonus. > Man-portable laser weapons of the “punch a hole through somebody and kill him” variety. > Fully believable androids or robots. We are nowhere near the ability to make something that can walk, talk and move like a human being. Same reason there is no small portable fusion reactor or small fission reactor or naquadah reactor.The oil companies are way too big and powerful. > [@Habeed](#): > > It doesn’t have to stop in midair - it only has to appear that way to human vision. So a real holodeck, there would be these flat panels on every wall that do not appear to your eyes to be doing anything. > > In reality, they are emitting light, with perfect control of the exit angles of the photons, such that illusions of objects floating out in front of the panels would appear to you. This would be awesome if the projectors shine laser and the images stop in mid air with out looking at a display screen or an inclosed device. Could this work any where or only in a holodeck type room with projectors everywhere? Could cellphone or laptop project image in mid air? In the future could a store or school project image in mid air? Or this will only work in a holodeck type room with projectors every where? > [@](#): > > You should think a little harder, then. Why do rockets cost so much money now? Building a laser propulsion rocket like any type of nuclear propulsion system is lot harder and more engineering problems and more costly. Space planes have been proven to work over space capsule too and may look more awesome but it is more of a engineering headache,cost way more, more problems came up that need to be fixed or solved. So we are back to the basics now.You may see some small space plane in future but nothing like the size of the space shuttle or bigger. Just too costly and an engineering headache. A laser propulsion rocket like any type of nuclear propulsion would be a engineering nightmare and no private space company could cough up this kind of money for R&D. A nuclear propulsion rocket would need radiation shielding and safety in place for a nuclear fallout or leak thus costing more. With the opposition for any thing nuclear today such a rocket riding on the shock ways of nuclear blasts would cause a public out cry. Any laser propulsion rocket would have to deal with intense heat. In your laser propulsion model the lasers and power source stays on the ground so in case of propulsion and power source that part cost would be removed from the rocket. So the cost would have to go to the rocket. If we had a space elevator,anti-gravity or some other cheap access to space it would take off like the combustion engine!! It just at this time going into space is prohibitively expensive and it is cheaper to send space probes than people. ---
**Author:** ![sweat209](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc348/32.png) [@sweat209](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweat209)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2015, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-fiction-technology-you-see-possible-in-the-future-and-others-not/722908/46 "2015-06-29T00:48:42Z")
exactly in some areas that not the case In some areas Science and Technology are really stagnating and other areas not. Well sure computers, smart cell phones that are like computers , TV ,electronics ,tablets, HD TV and now 4K TV , 3D printing of major leaps and bounds. But other areas Science and Technology are really stagnating. Airplanes - still traveling at roughly the speeds that were available 50 years ago, with some improvements in carrying capacity at the upper ends of commercial aircraft sizes. (Heck, we don’t even have the Concorde flying anymore… ):(:(:(☹ Firearm technology has had minor tweaks and adjustments - but commonly guns are not particularly more accurate, powerful or less expensive than 50 years ago. Space – too costly for space mining or people living on the moon or mars. Rocketry not really that much better than 50 years ago. Hardly any medical progress at all. No Nanodrones or flying drones as small as mosquitoes that can take pictures, record audio, and take DNA samples from you no Universal Translator no Handheld ultrasound scanners no Handheld x-ray scanner no artificial food no invisibility cloak no Electronic Circuits Integrated With Your Skin no bacteria or Viruses to fight cancer implants to let us breathe underwater no gigabit internet speeds warp drive would destroy any thing in its path.:(☹ So much for star trek warp drive:(:(:(☹ If you used warp drive to go from earth to new earth in news star system it would destroy the earth if you used it close to earth:(:(and any thing in its path:(:(. So much for star trek warp drive.:(☹ space elevator-- requires nanotubes well scientists have made nanotubes in the lab they don’t know how to grow to make large nanotubes many feet long.☹ If the space elevator collapsed because of terrorist or natural disaster it would do large damage to larger part of the continent. No idea how to anchor it to ground. Would Be Susceptible to Dangerous Vibrations a cable movement and the potential for whipping action and vibrations.:(☹ And lack of resistance against buckling or bending will have a profound impact on the elevator’s stability Other problems to the space elevator are -Satellites and Space Junk -Environmental Risks -Meteoroids and micrometeorites -Corrosion -Radiation and resulting ionization ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2015, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-fiction-technology-you-see-possible-in-the-future-and-others-not/722908/47 "2015-06-29T02:38:17Z")
> [@sweat209](#): > > . . . no artificial food . . . Good heavens, we can do it now! What in the world makes you think artificial food is in the “impossible” column? ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2015, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-fiction-technology-you-see-possible-in-the-future-and-others-not/722908/48 "2015-06-29T03:05:07Z")
Reading some of the discussions regarding automated (self-driving) cars, I’m surprised at the number of people who say it _can’t_ happen. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2015, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-fiction-technology-you-see-possible-in-the-future-and-others-not/722908/49 "2015-06-29T04:16:34Z")
Much of what you mention has been developed, but turned out not to be very useful or economical enough for people to use. A couple of examples: > [@sweat209](#): > > Airplanes - still traveling at roughly the speeds that were available 50 years ago, with some improvements in carrying capacity at the upper ends of commercial aircraft sizes. (Heck, we don’t even have the Concorde flying anymore… ):(:(:(☹ Yes, we had the Concorde. But it was a flop – not enough people thought it was worth the cost. Especially if the environmental costs are included. > [@sweat209](#): > > no Handheld ultrasound scanners > > no Handheld x-ray scanner They could probably be made smaller, but why? What purpose would it serve? Currently, X-ray machines are located at hospitals, where there are doctors (radiologists) to read the results, and others doctors & nurses & equipment to treat a patient based on those results. If every policeman had a handheld X-ray machine in their patrol car, how would that improve things? If someone has ‘fallen and can’t get up’, they need to be transported to a hospital and treated. Once there, they can use their X-ray machine to look for broken bones. Using a handheld machine at the site will just delay getting them to the hospital, and knowing that it’s a broken bone won’t significantly affect their treatment while being transported. To say nothing of the cost of this. Our (USA) medical system is already floundering under the cost of things like every hospital wanting to have their own very expensive MRI machine. Adding handheld machines (probably more expensive) all over the place will just increase health care costs. Many of the things you list could be done – if people thought they were worth the cost of investing in them. But people don’t think they are worth it. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2015, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-fiction-technology-you-see-possible-in-the-future-and-others-not/722908/50 "2015-06-29T05:09:44Z")
Also, hand-held X-ray devices could be weaponized or made into devices of terror. (Actually, I’m vaguely surprised no one has weaponized the microwave emitter from a mw oven. Yeah, it’s a feeble weapon, but you could do some nasty things with one.) ---
**Author:** ![sweat209](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc348/32.png) [@sweat209](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweat209)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2015, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-fiction-technology-you-see-possible-in-the-future-and-others-not/722908/51 "2015-06-29T06:03:53Z")
I’m pretty sure if the technology allowed it you would see small hand-held X-ray devices or a small X-ray device or small ultrasound scanners at the medical walk in centers, doctor’s office or the ER room!!! Than sending the person off to special room in the same building or other building doing a X-ray scan or an ultrasound scan wasting other person time and more delays for answers of what is wrong with the person. A paramedic or nurse does not have the education to read x-ray so you never see paramedic using it or a nurse. Unless you made the paramedic or nurse go for more schooling on how to read basic x-ray or ultrasound . The technology we have today determines the form factor of the device. It would take new technology,new materials and new ways to shrink the device down that alone a hand held device. A MRI and CT scan is other thing :eek::eek:it requires very big room and is huge!!! And very costly compared to X-ray or ultrasound that is dirt cheap. A MRI need very big magnets and is very big and bulky. > [@](#): > > Yes, we had the Concorde. But it was a flop – not enough people thought it was worth the cost. Especially if the environmental costs are included. With the technology we have today supersonic travel is way too costly for the public. A supersonic plane running on biofuel, hydrogen, electric or solar may replace jet fuels to lower the cost of supersonic travel. They are doing research and experiments now on electric planes and solar planes now but it still not ready for a replacement of jet fuel. May be in 10 years from now they will start phasing out jet fuel for biofuel, hydrogen, electric or solar. > [@](#): > > To say nothing of the cost of this. Our (USA) medical system is already floundering under the cost of things like every hospital wanting to have their own very expensive MRI machine. Adding handheld machines (probably more expensive) all over the place will just increase health care costs. X-ray and ultrasound are already cheap!! You can get x-ray for $100 The price of X-ray and ultrasound by year 2050 probably be $50 or less. There no reason they can’t get it. The cost of getting a CT scan or MRI is costly so doctors don’t like ordering these scans unless they have no choice or the first line of tests show nothing. If you don’t have health insurance getting a CT scan or MRI can would be very costly for person to cough up. The technology we have today require the CT scan or MRI to be very big for it to work and very costly. ---
**Author:** ![Enola\_Straight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dec6dc/32.png) [@Enola\_Straight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enola_Straight)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2015, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-fiction-technology-you-see-possible-in-the-future-and-others-not/722908/52 "2015-06-29T14:00:49Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Also, hand-held X-ray devices could be weaponized or made into devices of terror. > > (Actually, I’m vaguely surprised no one has weaponized the microwave emitter from a mw oven. Yeah, it’s a feeble weapon, but you could do some nasty things with one.) Imperial Japan attempted that in WW2. > **[A Japanese death ray?](https://airminded.org/2010/01/24/a-japanese-death-ray/)** > > If anyone came close to creating a death ray weapon by the end of the Second World War, it was the Japanese army. It wouldn't have helped them much, however, as they weren't at war with rabbits. According to Richard Overy in The Air War 1939-1945... ---
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2015, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-fiction-technology-you-see-possible-in-the-future-and-others-not/722908/53 "2015-06-29T20:39:06Z")
Michio Kaku wrote [a whole book](http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Impossible-Scientific-Exploration-Teleportation/dp/0307278824) to discussion questions like this. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2015, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-fiction-technology-you-see-possible-in-the-future-and-others-not/722908/54 "2015-06-29T20:45:39Z")
> [@CookingWithGas](#): > > Michio Kaku wrote [a whole book](http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Impossible-Scientific-Exploration-Teleportation/dp/0307278824) to discussion questions like this. Great book. And he’s one of my favorite physicists, even if my wife does want to run off with him. 😛 He had a show on the Science Channel (I think) where he’d attempt to make Science Fiction a reality, or at least put it in real world terms (I loved his take on the light saber especially). I don’t think that show is on anymore, sadly, but was a really fun show to watch. ---
**Author:** ![GusNSpot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gusnspot/32/436_2.png) [@GusNSpot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GusNSpot)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2015, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-fiction-technology-you-see-possible-in-the-future-and-others-not/722908/55 "2015-06-29T22:08:51Z")
Helicopters: Retreating bald stall is the problem. They are getting better at it and going acrobatic also. Still a big problem. Air does not scale. Aircraft designers, builders, model plane builders have known this since before ‘Kitty Hawk.’ Supersonic speed tests on shapes is doable and wind tunnels are important tools, but from there on, models do not fly like full scale and full scale to a model is a disaster. Easiest place to see this is in power required and lift required at a straight projection scaling. Computer ability & coding is so much better now that ‘having to build it & try it’ is not nearly such a ‘have to’ step. Actual full size testing is still required for things like aircraft, especially big ones carrying people… Fixed propeller quad itty bitty drones work much better than on the ones the size of the sky crane. Or even a one man kit built one. Mass, scale, power requirements etc, etc, do not for the most part compare in a linear fashion. A ‘Go Pro’ carrying quad run by a 10 year old is next to impossible to be an exact scale of an HU-1A and the simplicity of the quad at large scale and the power & strength needed to be as good as an HU1A is prohibitive. Figure how to scale air & water in the world as it is right now and you be a rich X 10 bizillion person… 😃 ---
**Author:** ![sweat209](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc348/32.png) [@sweat209](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweat209)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2015, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-fiction-technology-you-see-possible-in-the-future-and-others-not/722908/56 "2015-07-01T22:25:28Z")
> [@CookingWithGas](#): > > Michio Kaku wrote [a whole book](http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Impossible-Scientific-Exploration-Teleportation/dp/0307278824) to discussion questions like this. was there not a article in popular mechanics some time ago of scientists working on an odor breathing device that would show up different illnesses,cancers and diseases and such similar to blood work and urine sample that would give doctors lots of information about your body and problems with body not working right. You breath into this device and odor of your breath may single if you have illnesses,cancers and diseases and such? ---
**Author:** ![Cartoonacy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/848f3c/32.png) [@Cartoonacy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cartoonacy)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2015, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-fiction-technology-you-see-possible-in-the-future-and-others-not/722908/57 "2015-07-02T21:01:52Z")
One step closer to free-floating holograms: [http://www.iflscience.com/technology/scientists-create-holograms-you-can-touch](http://www.iflscience.com/technology/scientists-create-holograms-you-can-touch) ---
**Author:** ![sweat209](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc348/32.png) [@sweat209](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweat209)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2015, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-fiction-technology-you-see-possible-in-the-future-and-others-not/722908/58 "2015-07-09T00:19:38Z")
Some things we know not possible with today’s technology day. -small nanobots to clean up oil spills and chemical waste. -nanobots bring chemotherapy drugs to the cancer target or performed surgery operation on clog arteries or heart surgery and other applications like fighting infectious disease so on. Not one single lever or working cog has been made at nano-level. A combination of friction and static electricity (usually referred to as “stiction”) has rendered the entire field null. There is no theory for getting round this problem so functional machines at the nano scale are not yet possible. -batteries using nanomaterials can hold lots more power and recharged significantly faster than conventional batteries Batteries - there is still no fast charge/high capacity battery in theory or practice. A lot of nonsense about “super-capacitors” but nothing looking possible. -very tall buildings and long bridges Ultra building materials - nope, carbon buckyballs and carbon nano tubes are pretty but useless - they are only as strong as the binder. – Some things that are possible today. Targetted therapy, complex proteins can be designed and made to bind to a specific target, beta testing in hand and expect rapid delivery over the next 5 years. Phage therapy has been proposed as treatment of bacterial infections, though their use for cancer treatment is not as advanced yet. Lasers and various means of heat treatment are already in use for tumors and cancers, ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2015, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-fiction-technology-you-see-possible-in-the-future-and-others-not/722908/59 "2015-07-09T04:04:48Z")
> [@sweat209](#): > > . . . Not one single lever or working cog has been made at nano-level. A combination of friction and static electricity (usually referred to as “stiction”) has rendered the entire field null. There is no theory for getting round this problem so functional machines at the nano scale are not yet possible. . . . [Are you certain?](http://www.livescience.com/8019-world-smallest-hot-rod-nanotechnology.html) [This seems to suggest otherwise.](http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=1516.php) [This article points out the obstacles and hurdles.](https://www.dcbar.org/bar-resources/publications/washington-lawyer/articles/march-2011-nanotechnology.cfm) But it doesn’t even hint that the concept is unworkable. I think you have overstated your case, and are incorrect about the accomplishments made so far in the field, even if they are only small triumphs. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![sweat209](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9fc348/32.png) [@sweat209](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweat209)\ **Post date:** [July 9, 2015, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-fiction-technology-you-see-possible-in-the-future-and-others-not/722908/60 "2015-07-09T06:28:58Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > [Are you certain?](http://www.livescience.com/8019-world-smallest-hot-rod-nanotechnology.html) > > [This seems to suggest otherwise.](http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=1516.php) > > [This article points out the obstacles and hurdles.](https://www.dcbar.org/bar-resources/publications/washington-lawyer/articles/march-2011-nanotechnology.cfm) But it doesn’t even hint that the concept is unworkable. > > I think you have overstated your case, and are incorrect about the accomplishments made so far in the field, even if they are only small triumphs. 😉 Okay I did not know they where that advance with nanotechnology. I just read this today!!! \*\* > [@](#): > > The researchers used two types of nanoparticles, which could either signal a message or receive it. The signaling particles flow through the bloodstream and arrive at the tumor site, where they trick the body into believing an injury has occurred (either by emitting heat or binding to certain proteins). This stimulates the natural fibrin-building process. Then the receiving nanoparticles, which carry a payload of cancer drugs, are outfitted with proteins that bind to fibrin. The fibrin acts as a homing beacon, helping the nanoparticles travel to the tumor site. They release the drugs once they get there, delivering a targeted blow to the cancer cells. > > The researchers studied this method using mice and found that the communicating nanoparticles delivered 40 times more doxorubicin, a common chemotherapeutic, than a system that could not communicate. > > MIT researchers are exploring how to test this system with existing clinical studies using nanoparticles. \*\* [http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-06/nanoparticle-teams-communicate-inside-body-target-tumors](http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-06/nanoparticle-teams-communicate-inside-body-target-tumors) So it looks like they are making progress and looks like the next step is to make small nano robots and nano machines. I take it the fabrication of movable parts what problem? I take it most is based on in vitron analyses and it is not clear if the performance is the same in vivo? So small automatons in the nm scale is hard to do or not? Other thing is 3D printing of organs!!!:eek::eek::eek: Well a simple 3D structure with little internal complexity such as outer ear (basically 3D printed scaffold seeded with cells) could be within 15 years from now. Well a complete functional organ such as the heart completely 3D printed is easily more than 50 years away. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-fiction-technology-you-see-possible-in-the-future-and-others-not/722908.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/science-fiction-technology-you-see-possible-in-the-future-and-others-not/722908.md?page=4)