Penrose Gravitons - Emperor's New Mind
Jack Sarfatti
Morrison, Ed Salpeter & other Manhattan Project Bombadiers et-al taught
me in the 1950's on how to think about physics ;-))
Or, The Emperor Lost His Mind! ;-)
Tony Smith wrote:
>Jack, here is what I am thinking when I ask about Chiao-Fitelson and
>the Penrose model and your model.
>
>
>The Penrose model uses gravity and tubulin/electrons.
>
This is what I am questioning. As I recall Hammeroff and Penrose do not
make superpositions of the single caged electrons for their qubit.
Rather they use the much heavier two protein dimer cage configurations.
I think the latter should be treated classically.
That is, if the electron is in one well "1" use |1>, if it is in other
"0" well (of double well cage potential analogy with Feynman's ammonia
molecule example) use |0>.
This Dirac ket basis is only for the quantum electrons. The single
electron qubit is then
|q> = |1><1|q> + |0><0|q>
The dimer configuration c-bit information is inside the complex
coefficients <1|q> & <0|q>
In contrast, Hameroff wants to treat the massive dimer configurations as
quantum. This is a serious mistake IMO. Then, if they did it correctly
they need a 2 qubit pair state with the Bell basis, something like
|electron, cage> = |1>|open dimer> <1,open|electron, cage> + |0>|closed
dimer> <0,closed|electron, cage>
With no purely electron dipole phase coherence because of the
electron-cage entanglement.
This is a key physical difference that you ignore.
Also, what does "gravity" mean? Penrose is strangely sloppy. He is not
really doing quantum gravity at all. Penrose, or at least Hameroff's
version, uses Heisenberg uncertainty time-energy with a classical
Newtonian potential. That is quantize the test particle motion in an
external classical gravity potential. This is hardly "gravitons". He is
doing a semi-classical model. It's like doing the electron in a Coulomb
potential in the hydrogen atom.
>
>To do so,
>the links between superposed tubulin/electrons must be graviton links:
>Let * be tubulin/electron and ==== be graviton link:
>
>* ==================================== *
> (virtual graviton link)
>
Only in the sense, that the classical Newtonian static potential (near
field) - GMm/r has a dominant Feynman diagram that exchanges a virtual
spacelike spin 2 graviton between "charges" M and m, in the weak field
slow speed approximation. Big deal so what? There is no emission of real
gravitons here! Penrose's idea is so vague here that it falls apart
under critical analysis. What am I missing here? Show me the error of my
ways. But be precise!
OK Penrose makes a self-energy argument so that M <-> m are same thing,
with the separation "a" that of the coherent superposition.
Therefore, in some really sloppy sense, Penrose says at the gravity
energy uncertainty is
delta E ~ Gm^2/a
So what is m? Is m the electron mass? Is it the much much bigger dimer
mass M?
The time uncertainty
delta t ~ h/delta E(near self field gravity) ~ ah/Gm^2
For a virtual near field process off mass shell
(delta E)(delta t) < h (roughly)
For a real radiation on mass shell process
(delta E)(delta t) < h (roughly)
Ham & Pen equate (delta t) to the duration of a moment of inner
consciousness from a "collapse".
Here comes Bohr's Copenhagen Fairytale of the "Great Smokey Dragon" This
is Puff(ery) from the Peter, Paul & Mary song of the 1960's. ;-)
OK but we really need a macroquantum system of N qubits.
So how does delta E scale? Does it scale incoherently at N or coherently
as N^2. Is it virtual or real?
Do the same thing above for Coulomb potential.
delta E(near self field EM) ~ e^2/a
The N scaling is same, a is the same, So take the ratio
delta t(near field gravity)/deltat(near field EM) ~ e^2/Gm^2 = (gravity
induced undivided consciousness duration)/(electromagnetic induced
undivided consciousness duration)
Stick in the numbers Dude! "Put them together and what do you get?" N
don't matter, a, don't matter, h don't matter.
For the electron
e^2/Gm^2 ~ (1.4)^2 10^-68 cm^2/(6.8)^2 10^-112 cm^2 ~ 10^44
Therefore, the gravity consciousness time per qubit is 10^44 x longer
than the electromagnetic consciousness time.
Gravity minds are extremely slow witted. I'll take an electromagnetic
mind any day. It's really no contest if you consistently play by the
Penrose variation on Bohr's Copenhagen Fairy Tale! Doesn't help if you
use dimer masses.
Let a ~ 1 nanometer ~ 10^-7 cm.
e^2/a ~ (1.4)^2 10^-68 cm^2/10^-7 cm ~ 10^-61 cm ~ 10^-28 10^19 Gev ~ 1 ev.
h ~ 4 10^-15 ev sec
h/1ev ~ 4 10^-15 sec.
OK same thing for gravity using the electron again
Gm^2/a ~ (6.8)^2 10^-112 cm^2 /10^-7 ~ 10^-105 cm ~ 10^-72 10^28 ev ~
10^-44 ev of course!
h/10^-44 ev = 4 10^-15 10^44 sec = 4 10^29 seconds!
OK let's put in N scaling. If we use coherent N^2
Time of consciousness scales as 1/N^2
A proton is about 1.8 10^3 heavier than an electron. How many protons
are in a dimer? Let's say about what 10^3? maybe 10^2?
So this gives us maybe another factor of 10^-6 making the 10^29 seconds
10^23 seconds.
This gives N ~ 10^12 qubits for a conscious moment of ~ 1/10 second in
the Ham-Pen model - that's close to the number they propose.
What about the EM model? It is simply too fast using the Ham-Pen type of
collapse game.
But there is no reason to accept the Ham-Pen game rules.
>
>
>Your model uses electromagnetism and tubulin/electrons.
>To do so,
>the links between superposed tubulin/electrons must be photon links:
>Let * be tubulin/electron and --- be photon link:
>
>* ------------------------------------ *
>
>
> (virtual photon link)
>
>
>Due to
>the relative weakness of gravitation with respect to electromagnetism
>your model seems
>from a conventional point of view (although not my point of view)
>to have an advantage over Penrose.
>
What you are here calling my model has nothing to do with my actual
model. It's your model of my model =/= my model.
Using Penrose rules EM static energies make mind whiz by much too fast!
A Penrose EM collapse mind would be a Super Mind of God.
>
>
>
>However, the Chiao-Fitelson experiment is designed to measure
>a ========== graviton link with --------- photon links being
>eliminated because the * superconductor sources are
> _____
>enclosed in Faraday cages | | Schematically, Chiao-Fitelson
>
You lost me. I do not see what Chiao's SC electro-gravitic antenna has
to do with Penrose?
>
> |___|
>
>sees graviton links:
>
>_____ _____
>|*==|==================================|==*|
>|___| |___|
>
>
>but, due to Faraday cage screening, does NOT see photon links
>
>_____ _____
>|*--| |--*|
>|___| |___|
>
>
>Therefore, A POSITIVE RESULT OF CHIAO-FITELSON WOULD SHOW THE
>MEASURABLE EXISTENCE OF GRAVITON LINKS SUCH AS THOSE NEEDED
>BY PENROSE IN HIS MODEL.
>
I don't understand the logic and the premises of your argument here.
>
>
>Since a negative result might be due to other factors,
>such as the electromagnetic microwave to graviton conversion mechanism,
>A NEGATIVE RESULT WOULD NOT REFUTE GRAVITON LINKS.
>
>Tony 27 April 2002
>
>PS - In your last message you said:
>"... I don't think Penrose says what you say he says above.
>Show me the exact quote. ...".
>
>Jack, I DID show you an exact quote in the message to which you
>were replying. YOU JUST DID NOT READ IT. IT DOES SAY THAT
>PENROSE RELIES ON GRAVITONS AS OPPOSED TO PHOTONS.
>HERE IT IS AGAIN:
>
>>PS -In their paper Orchestrated Objective Reduction of Quantum Coherence
>>in Brain Microtubules: The Orch OR Model for Consciousness, at URL
>>http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/hameroff/or.html
>>Hameroff and Penrose say:
>>"... We equate the emergence of the microtubule quantum coherence
>>with pre-conscious processing which grows (for up to 500 milliseconds)
>>until the mass-energy difference among the separated states of tubulins
>>reaches a threshold related to quantum gravity. ...".
>>
No, this does not answer my question at all. I asked what is collapsing,
the single electron qubit? or the single dimer qubit? The masses are
very different.
>>
>
>NOTE THE WORDS " quantum gravity "
>THOSE WORDS MEAN GRAVITONS.
>
Too vague.
--
"What I cannot create. I do not understand." Richard Feynman
http://stardrive.org/Jack/cover.jpg
http://stardrive.org/Jack/open.pdf