>I know of at least two instances of sub-molecular technology.
Thanks. I've been out of the loop for a while, and missed these. (Catching up now, asap.)
>it strikes me as a good reason to believe that nucleus-manipulating "atomic
>picotechnology" would be an active frontier once atom-manipulating
>"molecular nanotechnology" matured.
Perhaps, but I hazard that people will be trying to change the shape of a single atom's wavefunction any day now, if they aren't already. And that they will succeed well before the first molecular assembler is built.
Why? Scientists vs. engineers. Subatomic tinkering is a natural next
step for people who are tired of drawing pictures with xenon atoms
and don't care about the "trivial implementation details" in achieving
commercial nanotech.
lubkin@unreasonable.com