Re:Nano-nonsense: 25 years of charlatanry (2010)
by api on Monday September 05, 2022 @10:15AM
(#32724549)
I think the argument is that the parts that work are just rebranding of chemistry, physics, and materials engineering.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Nano-nonsense: 25 years of charlatanry (2010)
by patrick0d on Monday September 05, 2022 @10:48AM
(#32724912)
The parts of chemistry that work are just rebrandings of physics and the parts of physics that work are just rebrandings of math. Nanotech is a subset of physics with connections to solid state physics, quantum mechanics, materials science, optics etc. I don't get why people say nanotech is charlantry when the semiconductors chip manufacturing industry is top down nanotech manufacturing.
Re:Nano-nonsense: 25 years of charlatanry (2010)
by chaosite on Monday September 05, 2022 @10:39AM
(#32724808)
Isn't that basically what "multi-disciplinary" means?
Additionally, scientific niches rebranding themselves is a thing that happens, for examples when Computer Science rebranded itself from Mathematics and Electrical Engineering.