QUANTUM DYNAMICS AND THE BRAIN

                                                               Quantum physics

Quantum mechanics formulates quantum physics, the interactions between elementary particles, with its own mechanics, different from classical mechanics, which in turn formulates the physical interactions between macroscopic bodies. Quantum phenomena occur in the lesser known scale of reality, which means that they do not have lesser parts known to science and implies their unexplainability, their lack of an inner mechanism; they probably are the mechanism. This is not easy to understand, but the opposite would be even weirder: A reduction of the elementary particles to infinite inner mechanisms. They are considered essential, irreducible to other more elementary objects, and fundamental, the origin of the rest of the visible phenomena, like crocodiles, or red snooker balls. What those particles do is emit and absorb other particles. Ynduráin asked in his book, “Electrones, neutrinos y quarks”, what could be the cause of the emission and absorption of those particles, which mechanism could be behind their kind of behaviour which is peculiar to quantum physics, and his answer was: None; such processes should be considered irreducible down to others. Freeman Dyson wrote that after dominating the formal language of quantum mechanics it was imperative to recognize that there was nothing left to understand. What is left is a mere description of phenomena on their own scale, not only counterintuitive, but reduced to themselves as well, devoid of lesser parts or any internal mechanism able to explain them. A person, an example of a macroscopic body, can be sitting on a chair A or on a chair B in the instant X, but that person cannot be sitting on both chairs at the same time. On the contrary, some elementary particles, like a photon, can be in two quantum states, “sitting on two chairs”, at the same time. Some of these characteristic phenomena of quantum physics can be seen with the naked eye. They are called macroquantum phenomena. For instance: If all the particles in a system are in the same quantum state, they could all do the same regarding that state at some point; if that mass of particles is big enough to be seen with the naked eye, some peculiarity might somehow disclose that phenomenon to a macroscopic observer. This is the case of the macroquantum phenomenon that takes place during the so called “superfluidity” of liquid Helium at 2,17 Kelvin degrees of temperature. In this situation the atoms of Helium of that system will share a same given quantum state if they are cooled down to that same temperature. That will imply that the individual atoms will behave to some effect, regarding that state, as one object instead of many atoms, and therefore they will be somehow indistinguishible and interchangeable at some point of their visible behaviour by some characteristic that would reveal that common quantum state. On a macroscopic scale that particular peculiarity emerges to be perceived as superfluidity in this case. What will happen is that the liquid will spontaneously flow out of its container on the top of it instead of staying at the bottom, because, if one of the particles does so randomly, the rest will do the same, surprisingly, as they share a same particular quantum state, at that temperature, and all due to a counterintuitive and unthinkable microscopic quantum phenomenon. The superfluidity is counterintuitive, because liquids are not expected to flow out of a container by themselves, they are supposed to stay at the bottom, even though one of them randomly flows out. But quantum physics is strange and counterintuitive. Nevertheless, what we are able to illusorily perceive, crocodiles and red balls, often has a deeper human meaning for us: To flee from a crocodile, if that were the case, would possibly have a deeper meaning for most people than to try to understand superfluidity.

Quantum physics and the mind

Consciousness ressembles a quantum state in some aspects, because part of the complex abstract information of the mind assumes a same abstract state, when consciousness emerges at a certain point of the mental process of perception. For instance: If a red ball is being perceived, sensory information about its shape that becomes the mental object “something round shaped” and sensory information about its colour that becomes a second mental object, “something red coloured”, will be integrated into a sole mental object, or assume a same state in the mind, the state “red ball as a whole”. Intuition informs us of this analogy between what happens in the mind and what goes on with elementary particles, and it is tempting to attribute true quantum properties to the mind, given its paradoxical characteristics, but it will be a meaningless analogy, because neurons, the constructors of the mind, are not elementary particles, and therefore a true quantum state cannot be generated through the interaction between neurons, whose behaviour is explained by classical mechanics. The brain and its operations, sensitivity, movement, the mind, can be explained by the interactions between neurons. Bertalanffy dealed with the subject of isomorphisms in nature in his book, “Teoría general de sistemas”, where he prevented against the frequent confusion between isomorphisms and meaningless analogies (An isomorphism, according to its mathematical definition, consists in the biunivocal correspondence between two sets of things. This means that, given two sets, 1 and 2, if a biunivocal correspondence is established between their elements, element A of set 1 will correspond to element B of set 2, and not to another element of 2. There will be an isomorphism between 1 and 2 if, whenever there is an interaction in 1 between the elements A and A’, then an interaction between B and B’ will take place in set 2 as well, with biunivocal correspondence. 1 and 2 will be isomorphic if that is the case. The brain also accomplishes a sufficient isomorphism between what is watched and the images that rebuild it in the mind, within an acceptable margin of error in practice most of the time. The specificity and congruence of the neuronal activity makes this a possibility). Due to this analogy between consciousness and quantum physics, some authors have glimpsed a link of some kind between quantum physics and the mental processes. There are diverse points of view about the possible vinculation between consciousness and quantum mechanics, more or less speculative. Pastor-Gómez reviewed the subject in an article, “Mecánica cuántica y cerebro”, published in 2002 in “Revista de Neurología”. Cairns-Smith, in his book, “Evolving the mind”, wrote that some people think that consciousness is, in fact, a macroquantum effect of some kind. Krasimira Kademova wrote that conscious perception is characterized by its arising as a whole, yet conformed by the parts of its system, and not only behaving as a whole, but essentially being a whole as well, comparing it to the macroquantum physical phenomenon of the Bose-Einstein condensation. Consciousness cannot be a true quantum phenomenon, but it can be an abstract (mental) representation of something similar, the same as words, colours, sounds, emotions, etc. are objective mental representations of other things too. Stephen Hawking wrote that consciousness might be a phenomenon of quantum coherence inside the brain. It could be, but which and how? Consciousness can not be a true quantum phenomenon, but it could be the abstract recreation of something similar, through the representation of an interaction between mental objects to become a whole, like “red ball”, although not ressembling a macroquantum state, but a phenomenon of quantum coherence in particular: Quantum entanglement.

Quantum entanglement

Quantum entanglement is a phenomenon of quantum coherence. Through this mechanism, “quantum entanglement”, two particles, once linked, or entangled, become one sole particle regarding some particular measurable quantum physical effect, even though it sounds strange. This counterintuitive behaviour, the quantum entanglement, was predicted by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen in 1935. Quantum entanglement has been proved experimentally, as told, for instance, by Molina in his article of 2004, “Experimento en el Danubio, fotones entrelazados”, in the “Investigación y ciencia” magazine. An entanglement of mental objects, like “shape” and “colour”, to become a sole object of the mind during perception, “red ball”, where shape and colour are inseparable, entangled, could only be an analogy of a quantum entanglement, not a true quantum phenomenon; it would only be an abstract representation of something similar. Given two subatomic particles from a common coherent focus, in order to get entangled they have to be of the same type, for instance, both have to be photons. Besides, their coherent emission is also mandatory, in other words, their phase synchronization, the mutual synchronization of their phases. On the other hand, the mutual synchronization of their frequencies is not mandatory for their entanglement, only their phase synchronization is necessary. This, surprisingly enough, ressembles what should happen between the “round shape” code set of neurons and the “red colour” code set of neurons to merge and form the “red ball” code, their integration taking place through a phase synchronization of their coherent single signals and not taking place through a synchronization of their mutual frequencies. An entanglement, for instance, between two photons, consists in a non local correlation between them (Neuronal integration takes place through a local correlation, in the synapses, so, to recreate an entanglement of mental objects, the neurons would have to be recreating an abstract non local correlation through a local correlation of the neuronal synaptic connections). “Non local correlation” means that the quantum entanglement will be detectable regardless the distance between the particles. This arises the issue with the causality principle in quantum physics, because, if the distance is too big, the entanglement cannot be explained as a cause acting on both photons at the same time when the entanglement becomes detectable to the observer. The trick is this: To the observer, the entanglement only starts to take place when the observer becomes able to detect it with the proper specific tools, and that can happen when the distance is already too big. Nevertheless, this difficulty to understand the cause/effect issue regarding the entanglement phenomenon is surpassed by resourcing, once again, to the concept of correlation, because a dependence between both particles will be observed anyway, although “non local”. The entanglement will take place from the point of view of the observer regardless the ability to eventually prove or to not prove at all the principle of causality in its case.

Local and non local correlation

The neurons, which are connected with each other through the synapses, do not keep a non local correlation between them, but a local correlation. In a neural circuit, A-B-C, formed by the neurons A, B and C, A establishes a synapse with B and B with C, and there is not a synapse between A and C. The link between A and B can be considered a relation of cause-effect, and also the relation between B and C, because it will be the transmission of an action potential from A to B the cause of an effect on B, that is, the possible discharge of an action potential of B. On the other hand, the link between A and C, as they are not connected by an A-C synapse, is that of a correlation. The correlation between A and C, no matter how far they may be from each other, and due to the length of the axons and dendrites, will still be local, as they will keep in touch, through B, which is connected with both and makes the circuit. Thus is the distant but still local interaction between neurons basically produced, through neurites (axons and dendrites), synapses, the formation of neural circuits, diaschisis (the possibility of distant connectivity due to the length of the neurites) and the transmission of action potentials. Some axons are even one meter long (in the sciatic nerve) but still their action will be local. In order to explain consciousness this brings up the issue of how would neurons be able to recreate in the abstract grounds a non local correlation of mental objects, even if it is only illusory, through some specific local correlation of neurons, so that the conscious self emerges as if it were an entangled state of abstract mental objects, as in “red ball”.

Product state

A product state is a state of superposition, or a superposition of states. Given a geometric point in a medium through which two waves are being transmitted, if both waves coincide on that point at the same time they will add their effect on that point. This is called “wave interference”. Interference is based upon the principle of superposition (superposition of waves), according to which the value of the perturbation produced by the two waves on that point is the same as the addition of the value that each wave would produce separately on that point. For instance: If a wave number 1 in the water coincided with a wave number 2, they would add and form another wave by their superposition (bigger or smaller, depending on the result of the addition: Bigger if the interference were constructive, when the wave added to a growing wave is growing too; smaller if the interference were destructive, when the wave added to a growing wave is waning and forming a “valley” instead of a “mountain” or “spike”, etc.). If a wave produced on a water pond by a falling stone moved a floating leaf of a tree upwards on the pond, after generating a wave, the height reached by the leaf would be the amplitude of the wave on the point where the wave hit the leaf underneath, the height the leaf would reach from the initial resting point. If a second wave, provoked by a second stone thrown in the pond, reached the same leaf at the same time as the first wave, because both stones fell simultaneously and not too far away from the leaf, to reach it more or less at the same time, that “same time” would be analogous to the expression “coherent foci” or “coherent emission”, that is what it means as far as waves are concerned. As it turns out, for a wave interference to take place, the emitted waves have to be coherent, emitted at the same instant, both stones must fall at the same time in the pond, within an acceptable margin of error, because if one stone falls in Monday and the other one falls in Tuesday the disturbance of the water produced by each will not reach the leaf at the same time (with enough margin of error of time for an interference) and the interference will not take place, both waves would not add their effects (and that is why the emission must be coherent).

For a quantum entanglement to be produced, a coherent quantum state, the emission foci of the photons must be coherent, and also for a phase synchronization to take place must be the emission coherent (And let us recall, once again, that, on the other hand, a synchronization of frequencies is not necessary in this case; for example: For an interference to take place the two stones falling into the pond do not have to have the same diameter). Waves add or superimpose as they interfere with each other. Once they interfered and added up, the two waves in the pond would be in a state of superposition, a superposition of their states, and also from the floating leaf’s point of view (figuratively), as the two waves would move the leaf upwards together at the same time. According to the leaf, assuming the leaf could speak, there would not be two waves under it if both waves moved the leaf upwards at the same time, both waves would be superimposed and would be one from the leaf’s point of view, one final height only, one final state, not two. In an analogous manner, the mental object “red ball” would be one object only from the conscious self point of view, not two, because shape and colour would come together at the same time, they would not be perceived separately. In the vacuum of space, where electromagnetic waves travel, there are not water ponds in which to see the ripples, and this makes it difficult to picture in our minds a state of superposition of photons. If the leaf were able to see, but the water were invisible for it, like vacuum for us, the leaf would find itself moving upwards until a certain height in empty space, and not knowing how, as it would seem to be happening in the middle of a void. The leaf’s conclussion might then be that it had reached some height in empty space, but not after being pushed by the water it is floating on, as the leaf would not see the water, but because it would be in such a state by then (higher), a state of superposition in its case, as more than one wave would be involved.

Superposition

As Aczel told in his book, “Entrelazamiento”, a superposition consists in an interference between a particle and itself, and an entanglement consists in an interference of a system with itself, a coherent quantum state. Ferrero also recalled in his article, “Información cuántica. Estado de la cuestión”, published in “Investigación y ciencia” (October of 2003), that an entangled state is a coherent quantum state, an interference of a system with itself. Let me try to understand, firstly, “superposition or interference between a particle and itself”:

Particles are some kind of a counterintuitive wave-particle duality. The leaf floating on the pond has been treated here as an ideal body, a particle of sorts, as the wave, pushing the leaf upwards, supposedly hit the leaf from underneath on one point of its surface, an adimensional and unrotating point of the leaf, after using the imagination to transform the leaf into a particle in this mental exercise. If the leaf were also to be considered a wave, or, in other words, if its behaviour, its changes of state (its moving upwards and downwards) were to be identified with the behaviour of the wave of water under it on that point of the wave where water and leaf coincided and became one regarding the “up and down state of that point”, then the movement of the leaf and that of the water would be the same as far as the determination of that particular state would be concerned (for instance: The state of the height reached by the common point of the leaf and the wave in a given instant, the same height in the same instant for both, leave and wave, on that point, whether considering that point water/wave, particle/leaf, or both, a duality wave/particle). In that case, state X of the leaf (its height) would be the same as state X of the water in one given point in time (and space). For the very same reason, state Y of the leaf would be the height Y of the water in another point in time (and space), by the second wave, and, so, a product state X+Y of the leaf would be a superposition of states X and Y when both states coincided on the same point under the leaf and at the same time, or, in other words, an addition of the water with itself, or, given their circumstantial identity (of leaf and waves), an addition of the leaf with itself according to its states, as we had reduced it to an ideal point, or, as we were trying to understand: An interference of a particle (the common for the leaf and the water waves point moving up and down) with itself (in the X+Y situation). This is what Aczel possibly meant by saying that superposition is an interference of a particle with itself.

Superposition and the “zero probability”

Given a particle of a system able to be in a state X or in a state Y, and being Y incompatible with X, then if the particle were in X its probability to be observed in Y would be zero. If a superposition of states X and Y took place now, becoming a product state X+Y, the particle would be able to be observed in X and Y with a non zero probability now, even though X and Y were incompatible before their superposition. When X and Y were not superimposed the tree leaf floating on the pond would be able to be on wave X or on wave Y and the corresponding states (heights), but not on both states at the same time (because their emission was not coherent). That is why X and Y were incompatible before adding. When X and Y were superimposed, the leaf would be on X and Y, on X+Y, a product state of X and Y, a product of their superposition (A photon can be “sitting on two chairs” at the same time). As a leaf on a pond is not a quantum object, its probability to be on X and Y when observed in state X+Y would be one, or, in other words, a hundred per cent. But, incredibly, and counterintuitively, according to specialists elementary particles, quantum objects, do not behave like that: If succesive measurements were performed in a similar case on a quantum particle in a state X+Y, it would not be observed in state X or in state Y, it would be found in state X+Y, although, inexplicably, not with a probability of one hundred per cent, like a classical object, but with its own distribution of probabilities, a given per cent for X and another for Y. This sounds absurd, too strange, but this is how the quantum physics work. Anyway, although unintelligible, there is an interesting consequence of this fact to keep in mind: After the superposition of X and Y, the probability for a particle to be found in a state other than X+Y, even if it is in X or in Y, will be zero. That zero probability is interesting now. It means that if X and Y were superimposed and an experiment were designed to detect particles in state X it would also be possible to find them in state Y if an experiment to find them in state Y were to be designed too, but not in other states, even though experiments were designed to find them in other states. In the same manner, if X were not superimposed with Y and an experiment to detect it in X were designed, if it were detected in X, the probability to find it in Y would be zero. The particles in the state X+Y would be then confined in that product state, and entangled when in that state due to a superimposition.

Superposition of product states

As Aczel explained in his book, “Entrelazamiento”, to ensure that an entanglement can take place between the elements of a quantum system, a superposition of product states has to occur. Aczel explained that given a composite quantum system, a system formed by at least two (or more) particles, a product state X+Y could occur, or a product state Z+W could occur too. If the first one, X+Y, took place and particle 1 were detected in X, particle 2 would be in Y. If the second product state, Z+W, took place, then, if particle 1 were detected in Z particle 2 would be in W. Now, if what occurred were a superposition of product states, like X+Y+Z+W, this newly formed composite product state would be, according to this description of a quantum entanglement by Aczel, an entangled state. This entangled state would imply the entanglement of particles 1 and 2, which would become thus entangled and therefore a non local correlation would be established between them. This, according to Aczel, would go now like this, and here comes the weird part: In case of particle 1 being detected in state X, particle 2 would only be detected in state Y, not in Z or W, even though the superposition of product states would include now Z and W too, and if particle 1 were in state Z, particle 2 would only be detectable in state W. This is strange and counterintuitive, as anyone would tend to take for granted that, during a superposition of product states, X+Y+Z+W, if particle 1 were in X then particle 2, should be able to be in any of the other states, Y, Z or W. Inexplicably, it does not happen like that on the quantum level when a quantum entanglement takes place as a coherent quantum state. In a product states superposition like X+Y+Z+W, the fact that particle 2 could not be detected in W or Z when 1 were in X, but only in Y is the same as saying that particle 1 and 2 would be one particle only now (entangled), as far as the detection of state X+Y+Z+W were concerned. That is how a quantum entanglement between two particles makes them behave as one sole physical particle to some effect, the physical effect of a detection of a coherent quantum state. There is no further explanation, as this mechanisms are irreducible to lesser parts, for elementary particles have been found to be irreducible; they do not show an inner mechanism. At least they are different between them, different charge, different mass, etc., so it is still understandable to a certain degree that elementary particles behave differently to each other during their interactions. This is analogous to what goes on during the macroscopic perception of a red ball, which turns up like an entanglement between mental objects to become one individual percept. During the macroscopic perception of a red ball, two objects, like the mental objects pertaining round shape and red colour, behave in our minds like a sole object, to some effects, like one red ball only, when detected in the “red ball” state, an indivisible fusion or entanglement of shape and colour, as they will not be able to be perceived separately as two objects (one would be the “round shape” object and the “red colour” object the other one) during the conscious perception of a red ball as a whole.

Mental objects and the “zero probability”

What is most interesting is to keep in mind this idea of a “zero probability” and also the idea of two entangled particles behaving as one to some physical effects, given the similarities between this and what happens inside the brain during the emergence of consciousness, because the conscious self can also be described as something that is unique and individual and by its zero probability of not being confined on its own macroscopic scale of perception when effective. Perception is effective only if it is macroscopic and confined: We cannot be aware of our own microsopic action potentials, only of what the emergent information they shape looks like at first sight, from a blurred and macroscopic point of view; we cannot notice that if we are our consciousness then we are those action potentials and the information they configure, the “pixels” of our conscious selves and what they look like from a macroscopic point of view through a timely change of scale.

Let us suppose that particle 1, or mental object 1, were in the state “round shape” or, in other words, that “round shape” were a mental object, something someone’s brain would be objectively thinking of when that idea took its exclusive and specific shape in that someone’s mind. If that were the specific meaning of the information that were being coded in a given network, then the “round shape” mental object would also be the “round shape” mental state. Let us now suppose that particle 2, or mental object 2, were in the “red colour” state. Let us now suppose a product state “shape+colour”, or “red ball”. If the “red ball” mental object came into effect as a percept with the property of consciousness (with uniqueness and individuality of the objects shaping the mental image of a red ball at first sight), the probability of finding particles 1 and 2 in a state other than “red ball” would be zero, because the information verified in that networking neural set would have that emergent meaning, “red ball”, not any other, as that would be the only possible information to be coded by that network at that moment, because a given code would have one shape only (besides being abstract, specific, isomorphic and congruent), for the correspondent train of action potentials acquiring that shape would be the action potentials actually fired there, not others, and therefore they would be shaping the specific pattern that they would be shaping, and not another. Curiously enough, that zero probability of finding the neurons coding “round shape” and “red colour” in a state other than “red ball”, during the conscious perception of a red ball, sounds similar to what happened in an entangled quantum state: Surprisingly enough, the “red ball” state is analogous to a quantum entanglement with respect to that zero probability requirement.

Superposition of mental objects

Neurons are not waves, so, in order to recreate (to shape, to code in this case) an abstract superposition of states (of mental objects), the neurons would not do it the same as concrete waves superimpose or interfere in the water. Neurons shape that abstract meaning of their information through a specific coding. That abstract recreation of a superposition, that code meaning uniqueness and individuality, would acquire its final emergent appearance at first sight like all the rest of the emergent mental recreations probably do (Or like the macroscopic image of a red ball on a computer screen does, by an emergence phenomenon through a change of scale and the consequent loss of resolution, that would force that meaning to emerge like that on the bigger scale, as an illusory entanglement of roundness and redness). The fact that “round shape” and “red colour” would be two mental objects to begin with, not one, and would still be two even though eventually perceived as one, “red ball”, because both neural sets would still be discharging simultaneously but heterogeneously, would get blurred from the macroscopic point of view, due to the lack of temporal resolution with the naked eye to perceive them separately as two, they are too close to each other as a function of time as to be perceived as two different objects from a low resolution macroscopic scale (something similar to the “quantum of consciousness” phenomenon). For “round shape” and “red colour” to emerge as one object, “red ball”, not only should the fact that they are two objects get blurred due to a lack of temporal resolution from the macroscopic point of view to discriminate them both as two, but they should also maintain their codes different, their mutual heterogeneity, for a “red ball” to have such meaning. The coherence of the mutual neural discharges of the networks coding shape and colour would also be necessary, so that the activity of both sets of neurons for the “round shape” and “red colour” codes were sufficiently simultaneous within a critical margin (like the two stones falling in the pond at the same time). A neural pacemaker, like the thalamocortical pacemaker, seems to be necessary to initiate coherently the activity of both sets of neurons then. This abstract recreation of an entanglement would have to be able to take place in a non linear (chaotic) system, the brain, for the emergence of consciousness to be possible and make sense. Would it be possible that the neurons correlated with consciousness coded a mental object able to recreate information with an abstract character meaning an entanglement, in spite of the lack of knowledge about quantum mechanics o the part of the neurons (And the ants lack of knowledge about ventilation systems)?