Is nanoscience a part of chemistry, biology, or physics?
>>7683869
none of those
Psssst hey kid, you wanna make nanomachines and shit? Then do chemistry kid.
Also, fuck you biology. Synthetic chemistry will soon exceed biology in what's possible. Fuck you proteins, you're too hard to engineer. Fuck you DNA nanotech, you're too weak.
>>7683956
that gave me an erection. we nano-sewing machines now?
>>7683988
Da fuq is a nano-sewing machine? If you're talking drexlerian shit like tiny robot arms then no, but some big name chemists are saying they might be possible.
But we are getting to the point where synthetic chemistry can make things we can call nanomachines.
Pic related a 'pump' for threading tiny molecular rings on tiny molecular rods. This is like really cool because you used to need 'HOLY SHIT IT'S A BOMB' pressures to make reasonable amounts of that shit
For movement, physics. For the rest, chemistry.
All of them. It is a very big field with many different sub fields.
>>7683956
OP here. The reason why I'm curious is because my college offers a major in nanoscience. They claim that "if you would like to be involved in a field at the cutting edge of physics, chemistry and biology, then the nanoscience major is for you." and "any career opportunities applicable to chemistry, physics, mathematics, and biology are also applicable to you as a graduate in nanoscience.":
http://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/learning/programme-course-paper/programme.cfm?prog_id=92411&major_code=2796
However, the nanoscience major takes exactly the same amount of time to complete as a dedicated chemistry, physics, or biology major. If nanoscience truly encompasses all three of these fields, then surely it should take 6-9 years to complete?
That being said, I'm intrigued by the potential for nanotechnology to be the next industrial revolution. I'm taking a computer science major right now but am seriously considering doing a double major with nanoscience as well.
>>7683869
Meme science tbfh
>>7684044
>nature laws come out from math as from fucking nowhere
Try to make a chemical synthesis with your faggy equations then
>>7684052
>massey
>not auckland
But nah that actually looks quite interesting. What year are you in now? Going to do postgrad?
>>7684285
Nah, I've just finished my first year of comp sci. I know a bit of Python and Java, but that's about it. I did take a few other science courses as electives though which means I should be able to start 2nd year nanoscience if I do decide to get into the program. The 1st year papers are common to all sciences however so I could choose to take something like biochemistry or even physics instead.
>>7684052
a degree in chemistry will give you the knowledge you need to understand nanomachines
a degree in physics would not, because physics is not about molecular arrangements at all
understandably, though, people in industry may want to see "nano" on your resume, so if you're concerned about that, get a minor in nanotech or get some experience in a nanotech lab
I don't know what a nanotech degree entails, but if it doesn't cover like 90% of a chem degree then it's just a bullshit engineering (ie application) degree and not worth your time if you actually want to figure out how to make the first useful nanomachines.
>>7684036
go talk to people doing nanotech research, a lot of principles of physics break down on the nanoscale, especially inductance.
It's a part of materials science.
>>7684310
I've heard that nanoscience is closest to materials science before. But wouldn't supramolecular chemistry be even closer?
>Supramolecular chemistry refers to the domain of chemistry beyond that of molecules and focuses on the chemical systems made up of a discrete number of assembled molecular subunits or components.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supramolecular_chemistry
>>7683869
yes
>>7683956
>Also, fuck you biology. Synthetic chemistry will soon exceed biology in what's possible
Consider this.
Biological computer science.
>>7683869
nanotechnology is just chemistry but with better marketing
>>7684052
>what is a multidisciplinary approach
>>7683869
>nanobot replacing neuron
so we matrix now?
>>7686505
>>7687282
If nanoscience is really the equivalent of all three fields, then that implies that a major in nanoscience is equivalent to a triple major in biology, physics, and chemistry. A double major alone takes 4-5 years. A triple major would take even longer than this. But a major in nanoscience is only 3 years.
Judging from the replies in this thread, it seems that it's more or less a branch of chemistry with some physics and biology mixed in the peripheries of the field. That sounds more like what could be achievable in 3 years.
>>7683869
micronanotechnology is an amalgamation of electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, and a bit of material science
i would know. I study it at epfl
>>7686533
It's shit.
> In another experiment a simple version of the “travelling salesman problem” was “solved”. For this purpose, different DNA-fragments were created, each one of them representing a city that had to be visited. Every one of these fragments is capable of a linkage with the other fragments created. These DNA-fragments were produced and mixed in a test tube. Within seconds, the small fragments form bigger ones, representing the different travel routes. Through a chemical reaction (that lasts a few days), the DNA-fragments representing the longer routes were eliminated. The remains are the solution to the problem. However, because of technical restraints of our day and age, it is impossible to evaluate the results. Therefore, the experiment isn’t suitable for application, but it is nevertheless a proof of concept.
