Penrose's Unconscious Gravitons - The Emperor Done Lost His Mind
Jack Sarfatti
by Uncle Milty from the Great Beyond
(in LIF if Penrose's model correct - it's not)
Tony Smith wrote:
>Jack,
>I will try one more (probably last) time to get you to see
>what I am asking about.
>
>The reason you are missing it is that you are too obsessed
>with detail-equations to see the big picture.
>In order for you to understand this message
>you should
>FORGET ABOUT ANY EQUATIONS WHATSOEVER
>and
>THINK ABOUT PHYSICAL PROCESSES.
>
That is very dangerous. Thinking about the Big Picture is not
incompatible in thinking about the math in a qualitative way. One can
over do it on either side.
>
>
>In any model. whether it is yours or Penrose's or mine or whatever,
>if
>at least two different tubulin/electron structures are in a
>coherent superposition (such as during the duration of a
>conscious thought)
>then
>there must be some sort of physical connection between them
>in order to get them into the state of superposition.
>
No, you keep getting hung up here. There is a big physical difference on
whether you treat both caged electron and its tubulin container at
quantum mechanical, which is what I think Penrose wants, or only treat
the caged electron as quantum mechanical with the heavy tubulin cage as
classical background providing the double well classical potential for
the caged electron. In Penrose's case you have 2 qubits entangled per
cage. In my case only one electron qubit per cage.
I simply do not understand your remark
"there must be some sort of physical connection between them
in order to get them into the state of superposition."
Show me mathematically what you mean for N = 2 i.e. "two different tubulin/electron structures are in a
coherent superposition"
Assuming my model of one electron qubit q per cage, I suppose you mean by coherent superposition a particular kind of entangled state like
(1/2)^1/2 [|1>|1> + |0>|0>]
In this state both electrons are in lock step phase with 0 degree phase difference in their electric dipole oscillation between potential minima 1 and 0 in each cage. Spin is neglected here. We are only interested in the dipole motion in space of each caged electron.
For N qubits, we have 2^N generalized "Bell Basis" states to encode information in the relative positions of the electrons in each of their cages.
The above is the standard Bohr-Heisenberg-von Neumann Copenhagen Smoky Dragon "collapse" non-Bohm digital way to look at it. In Bohm's realism there is the additional analog hidden variable information because the actual electron is oscillating continuously in its classical dipole motion like a tiny antenna. That is in the ith cage d(zi,t) = |d(zi,t)|cosine[2pi(kzi - ft) + phi(zi,t)], i = 1 to N. z is the displacement of the electron in the classical double well potential provided by the tubulin cage. This nonconservative potential is time-dependent from photons and photons (real and virtual) from nerve impulses et-al. We need to use the Bohm quantum potential Q inside each cage for the analog information.
For example, the maximal constructive nonlocal interference pattern in the traditional collapse picture is
(1/N)^1/2[|1>....|1> + |0> .... |0>]
Note that the single electron quantum density matrix is diagonal in the given |1>, |0> basis corresponding to local uncontrollable randomness or local incoherence. This is the situation for "signal locality" that I do not want to be stuck with.
This collapse, digital picture of the N qubits has a clear analog to "spin wave" quasi particle excitations in ferromagnets and ferroelectrics below the Curie point. The spin waves are bosons. We can imagine a Bose-Einstein condensate of them with a local order parameter psi(x) as maybe the "mental field". This is a pumped nonequilibrium open system (Herbert Frohlich) in which pump power plays the role of inverse temperature.
>
>
>IT DOES NOT MATTER FOR THIS DISCUSSION WHETHER
>YOU ARE TAKING THE ELECTRONS AS THE BASIC UNIT
>or
>YOU ARE TAKING ELECTRON/CAGE SYSTEMS AS THE BASIC UNIT.
>That choice is relevant for the detailed equation arguments
>with which you are so obsessed, but is irrelevant for my point here.
>
>
>For example,
>in the usual old-time superconducting metal
>the basic units are Cooper pairs of electrons
>and
>the physical connection between the basic units
>is made up of photons (because QED is the connecting force).
>
>
>In Penrose's (and my) model (whether his basic unit is tubulin electron
>or electron/cage system I don't care here) the connecting force
>is gravity, so it must be made up of gravitons.
>
I simply do not believe that is a viable idea because gravity is ~ 10^44
times weaker than electromagnetism at that level.
Also what about the equivalence principle? What about astronauts in free
float orbit around the Earth in which local gravity is eliminated?
That is, weight is eliminated. The local connection field, not a tensor,
is zero. Of course, the tidal forces, a curvature tensor effect, are not
locally eliminated.
Therefore, by "gravity" here must mean at the tidal force (curvature
tensor) level. Not an mgz potential energy effect!
Penrose writes for his self-gravity quantum interference qubit energy
uncertainty
delta E(self) ~ Gm^2/a
a is length scale of the separation between the two classical potential
minima in the near EM field double potential well inside a single cage.
Neglecting factors of -1
F ~ Gm^2/a^2 = mg(a)
Curvature Tidal Force Jerk ~ 2Gm^2/a^3
Note that 2Gm^2/c^2a^3 ~ Curvature ~ 1/Area = 1/Product of radii of
curvature for a uv element, u,v = 0,1,2,3 as in
Guv + /\guv = - (G/c^4)Tuv
Imagine now the cage is freely falling (or floating) in an LIF frame.
g = 0
The local metric field for the LNIF is then that of special relativity!
goo = 1!
It is not in weak field Static Spherically Symmetric Galilean relativity
limit goo ~ 1 - 2Gm/c^2a ~ 1 - 2 Newton's gravity potential/c^2, which
is only for the LNIF observer.
So if Penrose is correct, his quantum qubit interference gravity
self-energy should vanish in the LIF frame and we should not have
consciousness there because delta T -> infinity. This is obviously wrong!
>
>
>
>An objection sometimes made against Penrose's model is that
>the force of gravity (gravitons) is too weak to make any sort
>of physically realistic connection between two separated basic units
>in a human brain.
>Such an objector might say "Sure, there is a gravitational connection
>between two basic units separated by 10 centimeters, but it is
>very small and would be swamped by other gravitational influences
>in the environment. You cannot show me any gravitational connection
>that would let the two basic units act as antennae to transmit
>and receive enough information to/from each other so that those
>two basic units can get themselves into a state of coherent superposition."
>
>A POSITIVE CHIAO-FITELSON RESULT WOULD IN FACT SHOW SUCH A GRAVITATIONAL
>ANTENNA CONNECTION THAT COULD BE USED TO CREATE A STATE OF COHERENT
>SUPERPOSITION.
>
No you are simply wrong for several reasons. One is that the Chiao
gravity radio needs very very special conditions to work. The burden is
on you to show that those conditions are met in the Chaio theory. It
seems very far fetched and Rube Goldberg to say that Chiao's mechanism
is inside our brains. Show us.
>
>
>Note that I am NOT saying that Chiao-Fitelson will actually put
>two basic units into superposition.
>I AM saying that Chiao-Fitelson will show the existence of
>a gravity-antenna connection that is necessary for establishment
>of such a gravity-superposition.
>A more detailed experiment would have to be done to actually
>demonstrate the establishment of such a gravity-superposition.
>
You are losing logic here. Are you writing from space in free float? :-)
You need to show Chiao effect inside living matter of the brain or body
in general.
>
>
>Here, again, is the relevant schematic of the Chiao-Fitelson experiment:
>Let ========== be a graviton link and --------- be a photon links.
>eliminated because the * superconductor sources are
> _____
>Let | | be a Faraday cage surrounding the basic unit.
> |___|
>
>The Chiao-Fitelson experimetn 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.
>
No, not at all. I see no logic in this wild extrapolation between widely
separated dots.
>
>
>Since a negative result might be due to other factors,
>such as a failure of the electromagnetic microwave to graviton
>conversion mechanism used at each basic unit,
>A NEGATIVE RESULT WOULD NOT REFUTE GRAVITON LINKS.
>
>
>NOTE THAT IN THE ABOVE I HAVE IGNORED YOUR MODEL
>AND ONLY DISCUSSED MY IDEA THAT A POSITIVE CHIAO-FITELSON RESULT
>SUPPORTS THE PENROSE MODEL (AND MY MODEL).
>
>As to your model, I will probably continue to ignore it from now on
>unless and until you make at least two things clear to me:
>
>1 - WHAT ARE THE BASIC UNITS IN YOUR MODEL - TUBULIN ELECTRONS,
>OR TUBULIN ELECTRON/CAGE SYSTEMS, OR WHAT ?
>
I keep telling you, but you do not listen.
For now I favor quantized electrons in classical tubulin. But this is
not really important in general. If you can show you need to quantize
the tubulin cage, fine and dandy, but I think Tegmark correctly blew
that one out of the water. If Bill Page can show we do not need
electron/tubulin cage at all, but only the electric dipoles in the water
in all living matter, fine and dandy to that also. I am not a quantum
biologist. I am not stuck to any particular Hobby Horse on this level of
detail. I have shown a lot more mathematical modeling here on the
problem, have computed a lot more plausible numbers than anyone else in
this flaky field of physics and consciousness. That includes Stapp and
Penrose BTW. At the very least one must be able to compute:
1. Duration of a moment of inner awareness t with Popper falsifiable
control parameters, like the age of the universe, in my "Machian model".
I computed t ~ 0.3 seconds if universe ~ 13-14 billion years since Big Bang.
2. Number of qubits needed. A threshold? I computed N ~ 10^18 for
quantum action of mind on matter to balance post-quantum reaction of
matter back on mind.
The latter gives signal nonlocality as in Valentini's
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0203049 violating Shimony's "passion at
a distance".
3. Power dissipation needed to keep stream of consciousness going. I
computed ~ 10^-2 Watts.
Let's see your numbers here?
>
>
>2 - WHAT ARE THE BASIC LINKS BETWEEN BASIC UNITS IN YOUR MODEL -
>PHOTONS (for any electromagnetic connection), GRAVITONS (like Penrose),
>OR SOMETHING ELSE (perhaps some sort of Bohmon that is a carrier
>of some sort of Bohm-type guiding field, in which case you should
>describe your Bohmon in some detail because it is not something
>that is taught in conventional introductory courses in physics
>graduate schools at the present time).
>
I have been very clear about this umpteenth times.
The basic units are electron dipoles. I don't care if they are in the
tubulin hydrophobically caged electrons or in the water molecules or
both acting synergistically.
The connection between the dipoles is that of quantum macroscopic near
electromagnetic pump fields from nerve impulses like the Crick 40 Hertz
coherent brain computer clock field "Astonishing Hypothesis". See Haken
on "enslavement" of electric dipoles in "Synergetics".
BTW Chiao gravity radio http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/0204012 in the
brain not only would need biological Type II superconductor at room
temperature, but also the correct ratio of coherence length for vortex
cores to Meissner magnetic field penetration depth!
--
"What I cannot create. I do not understand." Richard Feynman
http://stardrive.org/Jack/cover.jpg
http://stardrive.org/Jack/open.pdf