top of page

By:

Rupak Bardhan Roy

17 March 2026 at 2:34:57 pm

Richard Feynman’s Bottomless Frontier

From a Caltech lecture hall to modern cleanrooms, Feynman’s vision of the atomic frontier continues to guide scientific ambition even today. During the fourth year of my doctoral research, my Ph.D. advisor gifted me a humongous printed volume. It was an IEEE anthology of selected academic papers, on microfabrication and miniaturization, published over a period of 50 years. That beauty started with a transcript of Professor Richard Feynman’s famous classic talk given on December 29, 1959 at...

Richard Feynman’s Bottomless Frontier

From a Caltech lecture hall to modern cleanrooms, Feynman’s vision of the atomic frontier continues to guide scientific ambition even today. During the fourth year of my doctoral research, my Ph.D. advisor gifted me a humongous printed volume. It was an IEEE anthology of selected academic papers, on microfabrication and miniaturization, published over a period of 50 years. That beauty started with a transcript of Professor Richard Feynman’s famous classic talk given on December 29, 1959 at the annual meeting of the American Physical Society (Caltech) titled “There’s plenty of room at the bottom.” That piece was first published in the February 1960 issue of Caltech’s Engineering and Science journal, which still owns its copyright. But that IEEE anthology introduced me to the lecture. It was 2015-16, I was deep inside the silicon world working 12 hours a day in a bunny suit, with a free-hand to waste as many ‘4-inch’s as I needed, but with a self-inflicted promise of getting the right devices out; the first fully functional MEMS wafer from that cleanroom. I had a beautiful white new Class 1000 at my disposal, a handful of machine technicians and operators to support me with my every need, and an unquestioning advisor with complete trust on my process capabilities. What followed after two years of ungodly experimental battles through 2015 to 2017 were tens of MEMS transducer filled wafers; on silicon, oxidized silicon and glass! And truth be told, I adored the glass ones more than myself. I never looked back, and I am sure my work to show through the last 14 years have walked the talk. So, that’s not why I am writing today. The context here is that essay; that poetic piece of mathematical techno-logic which later would hook me to this micro come nano-world, and probably forever. What did Richard Phillips Feynman speak of in that lecture? Radical Proposition In a nutshell, Feynman explored the largely ignored potential of manipulating matter at an incredibly small scale. He argued that the laws of physics do not inherently prevent us from arranging atoms one by one; rather, our limitations are purely a matter of developing the necessary technical skill and tools. Feynman challenged the scientific community to reconsider how we store information. He suggested that the entire twenty-four volumes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica could be written on the head of a pin by reducing the text scale by 25,000 times. Taking this to even an ultimate extreme, he showed that if we could use only about 100 atoms to store one ‘bit’ of information, every book ever written, which comes to roughly 24 million volumes, could fit into a space no larger than a business card. To realize this vision, Feynman pointed to two primary areas of application. The first was biological systems, where he noted that biological cells are essentially tiny factories that store complex instructions in DNA and perform chemical operations at a molecular level, implying that such high-density storage and functional machineries are possible. The second was mechanical reproduction, where he proposed a method of “manufacturing by halves,” in which a set of master-slave hands would manufacture a smaller set of tools, which then could fabricate an even a smaller set, eventually reaching the atomic scale. Breaking Rules Now the fun begins. RFP would now propose that as we move into the sub-microscopic world, the rules of the game would completely change. Gravity being almost irrelevant, forces like surface tension and Van der Waals attraction would be incredibly strong. Furthermore, at the smallest levels, quantum mechanical effects like the uncertainty principle would dictate how machines and computers must be designed, presenting both a challenge and an opportunity for entirely new types of engineering. To spark immediate interest in this ‘bottom-up’ approach, Feynman concluded his lecture by offering two $1,000 prizes. The first was for the person who could reduce the information on a page of a book to an area 1/25,000 smaller in linear scale, making it readable by an electron microscope. The second was for the construction of a working electric motor only of 1/64 cubic inch in volume. Ultimately, Feynman’s message was that the ‘bottom’ is a vast, untapped frontier. He viewed the transition to the atomic scale not as a violation of physical law, but as the next logical step in human ingenuity. Now we know, that lecture laid the conceptual foundation for micro and nanofabrication by shifting the engineering focus from bulk material processing to the ‘bottom-up’ manipulation of individual atoms and molecules. This visionary perspective directly inspired the development of modern lithography and scanning probe techniques, transforming his theoretical “room at the bottom” into the practical realm of today’s semiconductor and materials science industries. The scientific world primarily remembers Feynman primarily for his Nobel Prize in physics, his legendary wit, and his role in the Manhattan Project. However, it is this Caltech lecture, delivered almost 70 years ago, and unknowingly gifted to me by my advisor that truly reshaped my perspective. Who would have thought that his vision of a sub-microscopic frontier where we might one day “arrange the atoms the way we want” would transform an obscure young man’s understanding of what is possible and would ultimately define his scientific life. ‘The Master’ lives inside every obscure scientific opportunity that’s knowing or unknowingly waiting to arrive on the technological scene. (The writer is a Lead Process Engineer with GE HealthCare in France and a columnist with four books to his credit. Views personal.)

Silence! This Court is not in Session

The 71st National Film Awards will be remembered for the silence that buried a four-decade prize for cinema’s writers.


“Silence is Golden” goes the famous saying. But silence cuts both ways. “Silence is the unbearable repartee,” said G. K. Chesterton.  But in case of the 71st National Film Awards announced in August this year, silence has come like deadly arrows shooting out of a massive quill to attack 27 innocent authors who had entered their books on cinema for the Best Book on Cinema Award.

 

These authors, dedicated and committed in writing significant books shedding light on different aspects of Indian cinema, had entered their books for the coveted award. The wait stretched on to eleven months as entries closed in September 2024. But the three-member jury for the Best Critic Award and the Best Book on Cinema award was conspicuous by its absence at the PIB’s August 2 briefing while the press conference organized by the PIB blithely skipped over why the award had been dropped.

 

This award for the Best Book on Cinema was instituted 40 years ago but was never met with such complete silence. No one said that none of the books was deserving of the award. Or, that the jury had been disbanded and the Chairman had fallen very sick. This came from an insider.

 

Every author not only spent hours, research and dedication in the writing of the book, leaving aside (a) the struggle to get a publisher ready to publish a book on cinema which has a narrow market in terms of sales, (b) read the proofs and okay them, (c) organize the documents to go with the entry, (d) pay an entrance fee of Rs.5000+ besides (d) parcelling five copies of the book entered for the award which will never be returned. What happens to these entrants now? Will the five copies of their book entered along with the entrance fee be refunded by the National Awards organizers? Ethically, it is the entrants’ right to get back the books and the money because the award has been withheld without forwarding any reason for the same.

 

Among past winners of the same award have been graced by celebrity names like Vijaya Mulay, B.D. Garga, S. Jayachandran Nayar, Madhu Eravankara and many others including late actor Gopi. Books could be entered in any Indian language recognized by the Indian constitution. For regional languages a jury member did not know, he/she was asked to find out a master in the said language with a love for cinema in the city where he/she lived, and then vest on him the responsibility of going through the book with a tooth-comb and then decide on the quality of the book. This writer was once a jury member for this award so she knows.

 

What happened remains a mystery. Unless the committee deigns to reply to her emails, silence will have to stand in for explanation. If the award was to be scrapped, why invite entries? And if none of 27 books was deemed worthy, why not say so? (a claim hard to credit given the range and quality submitted)

 

Two entries, I can attest, were more than worthy: one a meticulous study of Sridevi’s work across four southern languages that doubled as a history of cinema in those states; the other a sweeping volume of 75 reviews charting Indian film over 75 years of independence.

 

Isn’t it really strange that Shahrukh Khan with his 32-year-long track record in Hindi cinema should have to share the Best Actor Award with a rank newcomer like Vikrant Massey never mind the latter’s excellent performance in Twelfth Fail? Equally strange that Shahrukh bagged the award for ‘Jawan’ - a film that raises strong questions not only about its qualitative elements but also about Khan’s performance as compared to his superb turns in ‘Swadesh’ or ‘Chak De India.’ I genuinely think Shahrukh Khan was more surprised for bagging Best Actor for a film whose sole aim was to rake in several crores within the first week of its release. Or did (as the yellow press would have it) Ashutosh Gowarikar, the main jury chairperson, try to compensate for his Swadesh actor not having won the award for his film? Think about this. As the late Ghatak kept on saying, “Learn to think. Practice thinking.”

 

(The author is a noted film scholar and a double-winner for the National Award for Best Writing on Cinema. Views personal)

 

 

Comments

bottom of page