Home Invention Product Research Resources
 Moletronics and Intelligence
Nano Brain Single molecule neuron

 

How much justified is the word "brain" in a nano brain?

 

Regarding invention of atomic scale devices: please note that any nano-scale device which is an analogue of our day to day devices does not have all features observable at large scale. Rather, they have elementary key features which are minimum and sufficient criterion to distinguish it from other devices.

 

A nano-car has vibrating wheels consisting of atoms and it does not have anything else. We do not expect gears or load carrying features into this architecture. Similarly we do not expect a nano-brain to dream and think of natural beauty. Rather, at the very elementary level, it performs the most fundamental task of all, taking decision considering many others at a time.

 

The justification is more properly addressed in the Resources section.

 

See Movie : Scanning Tunneling microscope image of our nano brain on a gold surface. This movie is unpublished and you have my permission to use it for research and presentation.

As time pass by we would certainly include many other features into the nano brain architecture. This features are also pointed out in a Table. However, for the time being we are getting our fundamentals right. See the movie below which represents the current status of the nano brain research as published. However, we have currently developed it into a 3D form.

 

See Movie : nano brain functioning as nano doctor or nano surgeon or brain of a nano factory


 

 

Our final objective is to create a massive parallel processor that generates pattern similar to magnetic resonance imaging of our brain.

 

On the right you can see operation of a real brain when its thinking, playing, sleeping, enjoying, calculating and all these are merged together. Side by side see the changes in the matrix values, how we see a brain in our research.

brain

 


 

Criticism of nano brain published in PNAS and beyond in IJNMC.

These could be possible criticisms that we noted as soon as we communicated the paper. Reviewers did not ask these questions because original contribution of the paper is conceptual advancement of linear to radial connection, not practical application.

 

Research does not gets its full dignity unless it is useful to society. So the criticisms arise in our mind.

 

1. It operates under Ultra high vacuum condition.

2. It is 2D therefore may not be stable without a surface.

3. Number of machines connected are too little, and more complicated than the

connected machines. Intuition suggests that it should be other way round.

 

We have addressed all these issues in our recent IJNMC paper.

 

The question that is addressed in this IJNMC paper is how to realise this on a 3 D architecture. We chose a spherical ball covered with CNN and thus the pattern is created on the surface. The design and preliminary experimental studies suggest that with 3 D we have more flexibility in operation.

 

Note that compared to real brain, our most advanced model proposed in IJMNC paper, the connectivity of evolved pattern is very little. Instead of 3 D pattern evolution we have 2 D CNN as described in our recent IJNMC paper.

 


 

Contact: Anirban Bandyopadhyay, National Institute for Materials Science, Tsukuba, Japan-305-0037