[Topic from BJKlein.com]
Originally posted by Peromnia:
I have heard that Cyronics will not work because water expands as it turns to ice. Therefore water in the cells will rupture the cells as the temperature is lowered below zero degrees Celsius. This would cause irreparable damage to the cells, preventing any possible resusitation.
Originally posted by thefirstimmortal:
I would like to know how those who belive that Cyrionics would answer this fundamental law of physics.
O'Rights, I think I posted the following in another forum, but I couldn't find it, so if this is a repost of a post, my apologies.
There is little dispute that the condition of a person stored at the temperature of liquid nitrogen is stable, but the process of freezing inflicts a level of damage which cannot be reversed by current medical technology. Whether or not the damage inflicted by current methods can ever be reversed depends both on the level of damage and the ultimate limits of future medical technology. The failure to reverse freezing iniury with current methods does not imply that it can never be reversed in the future, just as the inability to build a personal computer in 1890 did not imply that such machines would never be economically built. I will consider the limits of what medical technology should eventually be able to achieve (based on the currently understood laws of chemistry and physics) and the kinds of damage caused by current methods of freezing.
So what were talking about here is essentially stopping biological time. Contrary to the usual impression, the challenge to cells during freezing is not their ability to endure storage at very low temperatures, rather it is the lethality of an intermediate zone of temperature (-15 to -60 degrees C.) that a cell must traverse twice. No thermally driven reactions occur in aqueous systems at liquid N2 temperatures (196 degrees C), the refrigerant commonly used for low temperature storage. The only physical states that do exist at -196 degrees C, are crystalline or glassy, and in both states the viscosity is so high that diffusion is insignificant over less than geological time spans. Moreover, at -196 degrees C, there is insufficient thermal energy for chemical reactions.
The only reactions that can occur in frozen aqueous systems at -196 degrees C are photophysical events such as the formation of free radicals and the production of breaks in macromolecules as a direct result of hits by background ionizing radiation or cosmic rays. Over a sufficiently long period of time, these direct ionizations can produce enough breaks or other damage in DNA to become deleterious after rewarming to physiological temperatures, especially since no enzymatic repair can occur at these very low temperatures. The dose of ionizing radiation that kills 63% of representative cultured mammalian cells at room temperature is 200-400 rads. Because terrestrial background radiation is some .1 rad/yr,, it ought to require some 2,000-4,000 years at -196 degrees C to kill that fraction of a population of typical mammalian cells.
Needless to say, direct experimental confirmation of this prediction is lacking. but there is no confirmed case of cell death ascribable to storage at -196 degrees C for some 2-15 years and none even when cells are exposed to levels of ionizing radiation some 100 times background for up to 5 years. Furthermore. there is no evidence that storage at -196 degrees C results in the accumulation of chromosomal or genetic changes.
Stability for centuries or millennia requires temperatures below -130 degrees C. Many cells stored above -80 degrees C are not stable, probably because traces of unfrozen solution still exist. They will die at rates ranging from several percent per hour to several percent per year depending on the temperature, the species and type of cell, and the composition of the medium in which they are frozen.
Most implications and applications of freezing to biology arise from the effective stoppage of time at -196 degrees C. Tissue preserved in liquid nitrogen can survive centuries without deterioration. This simple fact provides an imperfect time machine that can transport us almost unchanged from the present to the future: we need merely freeze ourselves in liquid nitrogen. If freezing damage can someday be cured. then a form of time travel to the era when the cure is available would be possible.
As you know, this option, far from being idle speculation, is available to anyone who so chooses. Of course the most important question in evaluating this option is its technical feasibility.
Given the remarkable progress of science during the past few centuries it is difficult to dismiss cryonics out of hand. The structure of DNA was unknown prior to 1953, the chemical (rather than “vitalistic”) nature of living beings was not appreciated until early in the 20th century, it was not until 1864 that spontaneous generation was put to rest by Louis Pastur, who demonstrated that no organisms emerged from heat-sterilized growth medium kept in sealed flasks, and Sir Isaac Newton’s principal established the laws of motion in 1687, just over 300 years ago. If progress of the same magnitude occurs in the next few centuries, then it becomes difficult to argue that the repair of frozen tissue is inherently and forever infeasible. Ultimately cryonics will either (a) work or (B) fail to work. It would seem useful to
know in advance which of these two outcomes to expect. If it can be ruled out as infeasible, then we need not waste further time on it, if it seems likely that it will be technically feasible, then a number of nontechnical issues should be addressed in order to obtain a good probability of overall success. Here, we will focus on technical feasibility.
While many isolated tissues (and a few particularly hardy organs) have been successfully cooled to the temperature of liquid nitrogen arid rewarmed, further successes have proven elusive. While there is no particular reason to believe that a cure for freezing damage would violate any laws of physics (or is otherwise obviously infeasible), it is likely that the damage done by freezing is beyond the self-repair and recovery capabilities of the tissue itself.. This does not imply that the damage cannot be repaired, only that significant elements of the repair process would have to be provided from an external source. In deciding whether such externally provided repair will (or will not) eventually prove feasible, we must keep in mind that such repair techniques can quite literally take advantage of scientific advances made during the next few centuries. Forecasting the capabilities of future technologies is therefore an integral component of determining the feasibility of cryonics.
Such a forecast should,in principle be feasible. The laws of physics and chemistry as they apply to biological structures are well understood and well defined. Whether the repair of frozen tissue will (or will not) eventually prove feasible within the framework defined by those laws is a question which we should be able
Current research supports the idea that we will eventually be able to examine and manipulate structures molecule by molecule and even atom by atom. Such a technical capability has very clear implications for the kinds of damage that can (and cannot) be repaired. The most powerful repair capabilities that should eventually be possible can be defined with remarkable clarity. The question we wish to answer is conceptually straight forward; will the most powerful repair capability that is likely to be developed in the long run (perhaps over a few centuries) be adequate to repair tissue that is frozen using the best available current methods? There if no implication here that the most powerful repair method either will (or will not) be used or be necessary. The fact that we can kill a gnat with a double-barreled shotgun does not imply that a fly-swatter won’t work just as well. If we aren‘t certain whether we face a gnat or a tiger, we’d rather be holding the shotgun than the fly-swatter. The shotgun will work in either case.. but the fly-swatter can’t deal with the tiger. In a similar vein, we will consider the most powerful methods that should be feasible rather than the minimal methods that might be sufficient. While this approach can reasonably be criticized on the grounds that simpler methods are likely to work, it avoids the complexities and problems that must be dealt with in trying to determine exactly what those simpler methods might be in any particular case and provides additional margin for error.
There is widespread belief that such a capability will eventually be developed though exactly how long it will take is unclear. Sources include Engines of Creation by K. Eric Drexler. “Nanotechnoloey: Wherein Molecular Computers Control Tiny Circulatory Submarines”, “Foresight Update”, a publication of the Foresight Institute, “Scanning Tunneling Microscopy: Application to Biology and Technology, “Molecular manipulation using a tunnelling microscope. Molecular Engineering: An Approach to the Development of General Capabilities for Molecular Manipulation.” by K. Eric Drexler, “Rod Logic and Thermal Noise in the Mechanical Nanocomputer,” Proceedins of the Third International Symposium on Molecular Electronic Devices. “Machines of Inner Space’ Yearbook of Science and the Future. “A Small
Revolution Gets Underway”, by Robert Pool, “Positioning Single Atoms with a Scanning Tunnelling Microscope”, by D.M. Eigler. “Nonexistent technology gets a hearing.” by I. Amato Science News. “The Invisible Factory,” Nanosystems, Molecular Machinery, Manufacturing and Computation, John Wiley. Atom by Atom, Scientist Build Invisible Machines of the Future, Andrew Pullack “Theoretical Analysis of a Site-Specific Hydrogen Abstraction Tool” by Charles Musgrave and William A. Goddard III. Nanotechnology, Jason Perry. Nanotechnology Research and Perspectives, B.C. Crandall and James Lewis. “Self Replicating Systems and Molecular Manufacturing” by Ralph C. Merkle. “Computational Nanotechnology” by Ralph C. Merkle. “NASA and Self Replicating Systems” also by Ralph C. Merkle.
Nanotechnology 1991. special issue on Molecular manufacturing.
Although how long is unclear, New York University Scientists recently announced the development of a machine made out of a few strands of DNA, representing the first step toward building nanorobots capable of repairing cell damage at the molecular level and restoring cells, organs and entire organisms to youthful vigor.
The long storage times possible with cryonic suspension make the precise development time of such technologies noncritical. Development anytime during the next few centuries would be sufficient to save the lives of those suspended with current technology.
You are already familiar with nanotechnology so I will just clarify the technical issues involved in applying it in the conceptually simplest and most powerful fashion to the repair of frozen tissue.
Broadly speaking, the central thesis of nanotechnology is that almost any structure consistent with the laws of chemistry and physics that can be specified can in fact be built. This possibility was first advanced by Richard Feynman when he said, “The principles of physics, as far as I can see, do not speak against the possibility of maneuvering things atom by atom”.
This concept is receiving increasing attention in the research community. There have been two international research conferences directly on molecular manufacturing as well as a broad range of conferences on related subjects.
The ability to design and manufacture devices that are only tens or hundreds of atoms across promises rich rewards in electronics, catalysis, and materials. The scientific rewards should be just as great, as researchers approach an ultimate level of control-assembly matter one atom at a time.
Within the decade, John Foster at IBM, Almaden or some other scientist is likely to learn how to piece together atoms and molecules one at a time using the Scanning Tunnelling Microscope.
Eigler and Schweizer at IBM reported on the use of the STM at low temperatures to position individual xenon atoms on a single-crystal nickel surface with atomic precision. This capacity has allowed us to fabricate rudimentary structures of our own design, atom by atom. The processes I describe are in principle applicable to molecules also. In view of the device-like characteristics reported for single atoms on surfaces, the possibilities for perhaps the ultimate in device miniaturization are evident.
J.A. Armstrong, IBM Chief Scientist and Vice President for Science and Technology will be central to the next epoch of the information age, and will be as revolutionary as science and technology at the micron scale have been since the early 70’s. Indeed, we will have the ability to make electronic and mechanical devices atom-by-atom when that is appropriate to the job at hand.
Scientists are beginning to gain the ability to manipulate matter by its most basic components, molecule by molecule and even atom by atom, and that ability, while now very crude, might one day allow people to build almost unimaginable small electronic circuits and machines, producing for example, a super computer invisible to the naked eye. Some futurists even imagine building tiny robots that could travel through the body performing surgery on damaged cells.
Drexler has proposed the assembler, a small device resembling an industrial robot which would be capable of holding and positioning reactive compounds in order to control the precise location at which chemical reactions take place. This general approach should allow the construction of large atomically precise objects by a sequence of precisely controlled chemical reactions.
You have already read what is possibly the best technical discussion of nanotechnology that has recently been provided to mankind. The engines of creation by Drexler.
The plausibility of this approach can be illustrated by the ribosome. Ribosomes manufacture all the proteins used in all living things on this planet. A typical ribosome is relatively small (a few thousand cubic nanometers) and is capable of building almost any protein by stringing together amino acids (the building blocks of proteins) in precise linear sequence. To do this,the ribosome has a means of grasping a specific amino acid (more precisely, it has a means of selectively grasping a specific transfer RNA, which in turn is chemically bonded by a specific enzyme to a specific amino acid), of grasping the growing polypeptide, and of causing the specific amino acid to react with and be added to the end of the polypeptide.
The instructions that the ribosome follows in building a protein are provided by mRNA (messenger RNA). This is a polymer formed from the 4 bases adenine, cytosine, guanine, and uracil. A Sequence of several hundred to a few thousand such bases codes for a specific protein. The ribosome “reads” this “control tape” sequential, and acts on the direction it provides.
In an analogous fashion, an assembler will build an arbitrary molecular structure following a sequence of instructions. The assembler, however, will provide three- dimensional positional and full orientation control over the molecular component (analogous to the individual amino acid) being added to a growing complex molecular structure (analogous to the growing polypeptide). In addition, the assembler will be able to form any one of several different kinds of chemical bonds. not just the single kind (the peptide bond) that the ribosome makes.
Calculations indicate that an assembler need not inherently be very large. Enzymes typically weigh about 10-5 amu while the ribosome itself is about 3x10-6 amu. The smallest assembler might be a factor of ten or so larger than a ribosome. Current design ideas for an assembler are somewhat larger than this cylindrical arms about 100 nanocomputers in length and 30 nanometers in diameter, rotary joints to allow arbitrary positioning of the tip of the arm, and a worst-case positional accuracy at the tip of perhaps .1 to .2 nanometers, even in the presence of thermal noise. Even a solid block, of diamond as large as such an arm weighs only sixteen million amu, so we can safely conclude that a hollow arm of such dimensions would weigh less, six such arms would weigh less than 10-8 amu.
William O'Rights
thefirstimmortal