Slashdot Log In
DNA Strands Modified Into Tiny Fiber-Optic Cables
Posted by
kdawson
on Fri Nov 14, 2008 08:07 AM
from the bright-idea dept.
from the bright-idea dept.
holy_calamity writes "New Scientist reports on the latest idea from researchers trying to make microcomputers use photons in place of electrons — to make optical interconnects from strands of DNA. Mixing DNA strands with the right dye molecule upgrades them into wires for light, like microscopic optical fibers, able to absorb photons at one end and transmit them to the other. One of the neat things about using DNA is it is the right scale to play nicely with existing and future chip lithography. Quoting: 'The result is similar to natural photonic wires found inside organisms like algae, where they are used to transport photons to parts of a cell where their energy can be tapped. In these wires, chromophores are lined up in chains to channel photons.'"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Robots (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I for one will welcome the arrival of our photon-brained cyborg overlords.
Right scale... (Score:2, Interesting)
Hmmm...I'm no biologist, but I'll bet it's the right scale for human-implanted computing. Wow. Be afraid...very afraid...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You be afraid. I can't wait. Oh the trans-humanity!
Yeah, because our brains are light based (Score:2, Insightful)
How exactly does implanting optic wires into your brain do anything except give you a possible headache.
We have had electrodes for ages, so anyone wanting to create a brain-computer interface already had the tech. Oooh, and they already done it.
Mind you, you are the perfect sample for my next paper. "Tinfoil-hats linked to permanent brain damage."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Are you kidding? Yeah, it's been done using current technology, but to date there isn't one that isn't some clunky, oversized, borg-looking construction that requires an impractical amount of power. We need a "transitor" of the man-machine interface, something compact, efficient and reliable, and this looks like a step in the right direction.
The brain communicates chemically/electrically. A way to turn DNA strands into optical fiber isn't a step anywhere NEAR the direction of interfacing with the human brain.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm no biologist, but I'll bet it's the right scale for human-implanted computing.
I'm no... er... bio-computerist... person... but if you had naked DNA strands running through your body linking computers or something like that, they wouldn't last very long. For one thing, they'd get broken just by moving around. Also, this YO they need to add onto DNA strands actually interacts with the DNA. I don't know if it would be able to penetrate your cell nuclei to interact with your own DNA, but if it did that would increase your risk of cancer.
So... yes, be afraid, because not only would it
Damn! (Score:5, Funny)
We had this ability already built into our biology and we instead use chemical signals for our nervous system? It is a pity we didn't have an intelligent designer (one with degrees in electrical engineering and physics).
Re:Damn! (Score:4, Funny)
Perhaps the intelligent designer chose the "home" edition rather than the "professional" edition and we are in breach of some universal EULA.
Parent
And free copy too... (Score:2)
Aren't we allowed to view and modify the code {...} ?
Yeah, but you can count on fundamentalists and puritans to try to restrict us from copying and sharing around the code freely. (Or at least before a proper exclusive contract called "wedding" has been signed).
The organisation of life (Score:5, Interesting)
This of course is not evidence for or against any kind of theology in general, because theology is a much more diverse (and interesting) subject than the Creationists and IDers would have you believe. But it does look as though the question "how did life get started", which is vague and ill defined, is gradually resolving down to the question "under what circumstances can ribose nucleic acids form spontaneously, and how many other small molecules can we find which can spontaneously arrange themselves in the presence of ribose nucleic acids?" which is testable.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Speed of thought? (Score:2)
This got me wondering so I looked it up. Apparently research has shown that it took a volunteer between 550 and 750 milliseconds [answerbag.com] to begin to understand a pictured object in tests. That's pretty quick, if not light-speed.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The explanation that has been given in the Bible is the only one whose source is decidedly not human.
Proof that the source is not human, please?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Every day someone wins the lottery. They must be prophets.
Re: (Score:2)
Since you've clearly read the links I provided...
The Bible had predictions (complete with details) penned hundreds, if not thousands of years in advance of their (accurate) fulfillments. The year 1914, for instance, is indicated as a significant year, the end of the seven gentile times. Anything significant happen in 1914 that you can think of...?
Moreover, over the thousands of years that humans have had the Bible available to them, its content has not been altered beyond minor scribal changes. It has been
Re:The organisation of life (Score:5, Insightful)
I read the links. For someone divinely inspired, you're not a very good guesser.
I didn't see anything in there about "1914". Nor do I see the number "1914" anywhere in "the" bible [biblegateway.com].
The other "bibles" I'm talking about are those held sacred (and literal) by other faiths, such as the Mahabarata and other Vedic scriptures, any number of Buddhist sutras, the oral traditions of North American tribes, the Greek, Roman or Egyptian texts and traditions, and on and on around the world. Of course you don't think of those as "the bible", but rather just some superstition, but of course their believers think the same of yours, and of each other.
There are other things that have changed. Even the Hebrew torah changed in important ways about 2000 years ago, and there's plenty of analysis showing it changed from an original form to its form around the time of the Roman conquest in specific sections. And of course the original christian canon of over 400 different texts was reduced to the 4 in the "new testament" by a christian order about 1600 years ago. The persistence of biblical transcription and consistency through the millennia is still remarkable, but owes to the priority for exact transcription, and the fear of punishment for failure in both the living world, and the expected "afterlife". Zoroastrian gospel has been at least as consistent since about 3000 years ago, while spending its first millennium transmitted only orally, with at least as many "efforts to destroy it entirely".
There is no evidence that "the" bible you prefer is effective for family life, work ethic, view of money, treatment of fellow man, etc. Practically no one follows the entire literal prescriptions of the bible, to the exclusion of any other source of life guidance. And there are plenty of perfectly functional and happy people who follow their own bibles, with little influence sourced from "the" bible you prefer.
I know "the" bible, and its blindered, faithy adherents (of many denominations, many bibles), quite well, thank you. I also know science and reason, which make it easy to debunk any of the bible worshippers' contrived arguments like you've offered here. The only way that bible worship ever meets science and reason with any chance of survival is by willful blindness, or acceptance of science and reason debunking the bible except as a self-programming exercise in pure metaphysics.
The bible's got some good lessons, co-evolving with a successful style of civilization the dominance of which self-selects for successful life strategies within its constructed values. But it's a work of humans, even if quite an excellent one. Except maybe when it doesn't matter what's true, and what you're looking for is a good story to share with other people you like, when believing it's something supernatural is harmless fun. Taking it further than that is unwarranted, and usually leads to terrible consequences fairly quickly.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
1) Get a list of 128 email addresses.
2) Pick a volatile stock.
3) Send half the list a "tip" that the stock will climb.
4) Send the other half a "tip" that it will fall.
5) Discard whatever half you gave bad advice to.
6) Repeat steps 2-5, five times
7) Send the remaining guy an email pointing out that you just picked six stock movements in a row, offer to give another tip in exchange for immortal soul and 10% of earthly income.
8) PROPHET!!
It's called survivor bias. Wh
Re: (Score:2)
If the bible is accurately predicting the future then there is no such thing as free will. The pre-determined future requires man to have no tabla rosa, our fate is given to us at birth. (Actually given to us at the time of the predictions being first given)
Therefore why bother with healthful teachings - it's not nurture, it's nature all the way. You are who you are programmed to be, unable to change destiny one iota or the carefully scripted outcome would fall apart.
Sounds depressing to me, I think I'll f
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I see you're a believer of Bible Codes
I can only imagine you're referring to my statement regarding the year 1914. This is a number reached through chronology based on prophecy, not mystic numerical patterns.
Re: (Score:2)
except that the Christian calendar was created hundreds of years later. In fact because of miss translations(Hebrew-Greek- Latin-English) the bible as you have read it contains numerous small errors. The story of gensis isn't seven days but seven periods of time. Ranging from days to eons.
Believing the bible without reading it in Hebrew or ancient Greek. Is for those who can't think.
Re: (Score:2)
"Act now and you too can get into Heaven! Only 144,000 spots, so be sure to act fast! This is a limited time offer, the
Re: (Score:2)
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_WitnessesWikipedia [wikipedia.org] there are "an average of 6.8 million members actively involved in preaching". Contrast that with the 144,000 belief and no matter how you crunch the numbers it means there are several million seriously deluded people subscribing to this belief system. I'm all for people believing whatever they wan
Re: (Score:2)
Creationists insist that their ability to understand all of "creation" is sharply limited. And they even celebrate those limits, elevating the limiter to omnipotent status.
Scientists insist that they can understand practically anything they try, and demonstrate that they're right over and over in ways that everyone accepts by using, and even depending on, them.
It is foolish for Creationists to argue the chemical and biological origins of life with scientists, who have a pretty accurate, though increasingly
Re: (Score:2)
To clarify: I am not a Creationist. As someone who has examined the physical evidence and found that the explanation of creation provided in the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures (which collection I shall consistently refer to as the Bible) is sufficient and then some, I have cause to believe in an Intelligent Designer and almighty God.
Credulity != Faith. I have faith.
Re: (Score:2)
As o
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no physical evidence of "divine creation". The whole point is that "god created the heavens and the Earth" by some miraculous act.
You're a Creationist. You "know" that god created existence, and Adam and Eve. The way you know it is by reading a book written before you were born. You have faith in that knowledge, which means you know something that cannot be either proven or disproven.
Others have their own faiths, like tribal Americans who believe a Creator created some garden plants, then made the
Which Bible is that? Not the original. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps some more study would be beneficial to you.
Hebrew grammar
Elohim has plural morphological form in Hebrew, but it is used with singular verbs and adjectives in the Hebrew text when the particular meaning of the God of Israel (a singular deity) is traditionally understood. Thus the very first words of the Bible are breshit bara elohim, where bara is a verb inflected as third person singular masculine perfect. If Elohim were an ordinary plural word, then the plural verb form bar'u would have been used in this sentence instead. Such plural grammatical forms are in fact found in cases where Elohim has semantically plural reference (not referring to the God of Israel). There are a few other words in Hebrew that have a plural ending, but refer to a single entity and take singular verbs and adjectives, for example (be'alim, owner) in Exodus 21:29 and elsewhere.
Source [wikipedia.org]
That "Jehovah" is not the original name of the God of the Israelites is well documented. Despite this, it is a name that is familiar (as Jesus whose name may have been closer to Yehoshua is another example of) and has the same semantic significance. The illustration has been given that, if you had a foreign friend whose name was difficult to impossible for you to pronounce, would he appreciate it if you simply assigned him a title (Mister, Sir) and called h
They strain at a gnat (Score:3, Interesting)
RNA (Score:2)
Okay, but... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The article is -light- on details (ugh). If the DNA strand has to be of a specific base composition, then they probably made it themselves with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in a test tube. Also, proteins stuck on the DNA strand may have interfered with whatever YO is and whatever it was doing, PCR-generated DNA would also eliminate that problem.
If associated proteins don't stop the signal and sequence doesn't matter, I suppose they could have gotten it from anywhere they wanted. Its easy to harvest a
Signal loss? (Score:3, Interesting)
As I understand it, fiber optic works because there is minimal signal (light) loss due to total internal reflection, which is a consequence of differences in the refractive indices of the glass and the cladding used in the fiber. Does the structure of DNA somehow support reflecting light in the same way? Pretty cool stuff.
Re:Signal loss? (Score:4, Informative)
These DNA "optical fibers" are made by inserting chromophores [wikipedia.org] into DNA strands. The DNA is the path between two points, a substrate on which to lay out a sequence of chromophores. The chromophore path can transfer photons from one chromophore to another. The light isn't "reflecting", its transmission is something like the inverse of internally refractive transmission through an optically transparent medium. Chromophores do form the path through which light travels, but this new publication doesn't specify the physical mechanism by which light is transmitted from one chromophore to another along the DNA. However, the chromophores are not a contiguous optically transparent medium, so they're not transferring the photons the way that familiar fiberoptics do, which depends on them acting as a contiguous optical medium.
Parent
lasers, sigh.... (Score:2)
Does this mean I can (eventually) get modified to shoot lasers from my eyes?
or fingertips?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am sure it would come with a power switch of some sort....
Are laser pointers always on?
I may be an insensitive clod, but you, sir are an unintelligent dork.
Tomorrow, I can take sensitivity training, you.... well....
Re: (Score:2)
Photonic "wires" (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't think the comparison with optic fibres is valid. This is no reflection phenomenon. The so-called natural optic wires are not reflection based, but rather a series of chromophores chained together. Photon transport is a series of absorption-emission-events channeling the energy down the chain.
The same is most likely the case with this stuff. The light transport is no intrinsic property of the DNA, but rather of chromophores coupled t
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
There are examples of biological optics:
A small node on one example [everything2.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't all "bouncing" of light, and therefor fiber optics too, just a series of absorption-emission-events?
Correct me if you know better, this is just a "didn't I read somewhere once that the same photon doesn't come back when it "reflects" off a mirror?" thing
Re: (Score:2)
You guessed right that the DNA is just the "scaffolding" determining paths of chromophores "doped" into the DNA along their paths. That the light is transmitted through the sequence of chromophores (though the article doesn't specify just what mechanism transmits the light along the chromophore trail).
But that doesn't at all discount these structures from being counted as "optical fibers". They just introduce a new class of optical fibers that aren't a contiguous optically transparent medium the way glass f
yes, certainly the perfect interface... (Score:2)
for a CYBORG! cybernetic interfaces here we come.
Think Photosynthesis, not Fiber Optics (Score:5, Interesting)
Fiber optics works based on the principles that photons will reflect off of a surface given a sufficient difference in refractive index and approach angle, allowing high-bandwidth communication. This new DNA photon transport system seems to have very little resemblance. I would guess that using DNA for communication would be very slow and very low bandwidth, to the point of being practically infeasible.
new plan, people (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Use DNA-based fiber-optics in the major backbones of the internet
2. Spread rumor that the DNA comes from fetal stem cells from forcibly aborted babies, white christian babies!
3. Watch right-wingers shut down their sites and flee the internet so they won't be taking part in the satanic evil of telecommunications.
4. Remind them that their phone calls go over that same satanic fiber so they can't use phones, either.
5. Gin up a new rumor that the power lines are being replaced by baby DNA fiber-optics, too, mail that to them in a chain letter.
6. Watch them become the new Amish, shunning baby DNA-based demon technology, spinning their hate into hand-crafted quilts sold by the roadside.
7. ??? Maybe if we're still feeling malicious, convince them buttons use baby DNA, too.
8. Profit!
Decay (Score:2)
OK, but don't DNA strands decay when hit by any number of high-energy rays? Aren't they organic molecules that various organisms eat? Would we trading the benefits of using this molecule for a whole new set of failure types and the cost and weight of shielding?
Re: (Score:2)
Gives an old meaning to the term virus, huh?
Hackers will now use genetically engineered viruses to attack network links directly.