Write4U's wobbly world of word salad woo

[Write4U]

Your pilot waves are undetectable, I'm afraid.

But they are detectable. In the double slit experiment they behave exactly as the waves as in the Copenhagen Interpretation.

It is a matter of "interpretation" what the waves represent, the particles in transit as in the Copenhagen Interpretation, or a deeper underlying universal wave function. The results are identical and observable.

Bohmian trajectories for an electron going through the two-slit experiment.
A similar pattern was also extrapolated from weak measurements of single photons.[3]

de Broglie–Bohm theory

Measurements are a particular case of quantum processes described by the theory—for which it yields the same quantum predictions as other interpretations of quantum mechanics. The theory does not have a "measurement problem", due to the fact that the particles have a definite configuration at all times.

The Born rule in de Broglie–Bohm theory is not a postulate. Rather, in this theory, the link between the probability density and the wave function has the status of a theorem, a result of a separate postulate, the "quantum equilibrium hypothesis", which is additional to the basic principles governing the wave function. There are several equivalent mathematical formulations of the theory.

De Broglie–Bohm theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[James R]

But they are detectable.

No. Pay attention. I already told you once.

If it is your claim that Bohm's pilot waves can be somehow detected, you should be able to tell me what apparatus I would need to use to detect them.

But I asked you before and you either didn't understand the question or you tried to dodge it and post irrelevancies, as you have done here.

Either try to support your claim, or else admit you cannot do so.

In the double slit experiment they behave exactly as the waves as in the Copenhagen Interpretation.

No. The pilot waves do NOT behave like Schrodinger probability waves (which, by the way, are also undetectable).

If you're going to make claims about stuff like this, you will need to understand what it is that you're talking about.

Sadly, that seems to be utterly beyond your grasp when it comes to most science, these days. You seem to think that cutting and pasting the first search result from google is a substitute for understanding things.

 

[Write4U]

No. The pilot waves do NOT behave like Schrodinger probability waves (which, by the way, are also undetectable).

Then how do you know they exist? My claim (by all accounts) is that the Bohm's Pilot wave function behaves the same way as the wave function in the Copenhagen Interpretation. The only, but remarkable difference is that in Bohmian Mechanics, a particle is a particle and a wave is a wave, which is standard mainstream quantum theory. That's what makes it a viable competitor theory.

Has anybody addressed the question, that if quanta are quantized, is it's wave function quantized in the Copenhagen Interpretation?
Or should we not ask that question?

How can I explain the Quantum/Wave theory

In the analog sense, energy flows in continuous streams or waves, having no specific inherent quantity - in other words, an energy wave could be any size. The quantum idea says energy is a "digital" flow, that what appears to be continuous waves is actually broken down into discrete, individual "bits".

The name "photon" is used for these individual energy particles. Photons contain a specific amount of energy. For example, if you have a pure red light (like a laser), it can be thought of as a stream of photons all having a specific energy (the units for measuring this energy are usually electron-volts). The more photons, the brighter the light - but all the photons individually have the same amount of energy. In fact, these individual particles of energy can be detected discretely, or counted.

Now, at the same time, the light has the properties of a wave. The wave can be described by its wavelength and frequency. Experiments can be devised that show light (or other electromagnetic energy) to act as a wave or a particle. If the quantum theory is correct, we must accept this "weirdness of science" even if we can't explain it very well.

Unfortunately, it gets worse when we look at properties of matter. In the subatomic world, it was discovered that particles such as electrons, which are usually thought of as actual physical chunks of something, can be observed behaving as if they too are waves. It turns out that by using the equations that describe photons as waves, one could describe an electron as having a certain wavelength and frequency - matter waves.

Questions and Answers - How can I explain the Quantum/Wave theory to my class?

An answer to the question: How can I explain quantum theory?

education.jlab.org

That problem does not exist in Bohm's model, does it? They are 2 separate things. A quantum is quantized, a wave function is continuous.

 

[Write4U]

No. The pilot waves do NOT behave like Schrodinger probability waves (which, by the way, are also undetectable).

I think this satisfies your question.

A collection of particles has an associated matter wave which evolves according to the Schrödinger equation. Each particle follows a deterministic trajectory, which is guided by the wave function; collectively, the density of the particles conforms to the magnitude of the wave function. The wave function is not influenced by the particle and can exist also as an empty wave function.[16]

Pilot wave theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Write4U]

Sadly, that seems to be utterly beyond your grasp when it comes to most science, these days. You seem to think that cutting and pasting the first search result from google is a substitute for understanding things.

Interesting conclusion. I take it you get your information and understanding via divine inspiration instead of books?
How do you know my quoted passages are a reference from a first google search instead of selected for clarity from several searches?
Do you know my research habits?

Ared you claiming that you understand how it all works, without answers to the questions you are not supposed to ask?

Here is another excerpt from a scientific book, selected for clarity.

Physics and Philosophy​

Bohm rediscovered the pilot- or guiding wave, already proposed by Louis de Broglie 1927. Bohm’s theory/interpretation, which follows naturally from the Schrödinger equation, has several advantages over other interpretations:

- It is realistic. Particles exist and remain particles; their paths can be calculated at any time.

- It is deterministic. The position and speed of the existing quantum objects can be precisely calculated from initial conditions.

- It needs a minimum of unusual ideas. You only have to accept that some effects travel much faster than light. But this also seems to be the case with gravity and other forces, a question that is never addressed by orthodox physics; with entanglement, cosmic inflation and shock waves in a plasma.

- There is no need for vagueness/indeterminacy/uncertainty.

- It can explain paradoxical phenomena quite naturally, e.g. “interferences with itself” in double-slit experiments with single particles, or the strange processes with “delayed choice”.

more.... https://peterripota.medium.com/how-bohm-rediscovered-reinvented-pilot-waves-ae6ae7fdc2f7#

All these people are wrong? There is no room for doubt? Wow, you must have quite a reputation among your peers.

 

[James R]

Write4U:

Then how do you know they exist?

As far as I'm concerned, Schrodinger probability waves and wavefunctions and such are mathematical descriptions of a system. There is no need to the waves to "exist" as real, detectable things. The wave description is useful because it allows us to make quantitative, accurate predictions about the results of particular experiments and observations. But it's not the only description of quantum physics; there are alternatives that work just as well.

My claim (by all accounts) is that the Bohm's Pilot wave function behaves the same way as the wave function in the Copenhagen Interpretation.

Then all the accounts you have read are wrong. I've now told you this three times. Pilot waves behave very differently to Schrodinger probability waves. Their function in Bohmian mechanics is completely different from the function that Schrodinger waves play in regular quantum mechanics.

You have supposedly spent years studying up on Bohmian theory. Why aren't you even aware of this basic fact about that theory? It's because you don't actually understand the first thing about it, isn't it?

The only, but remarkable difference is that in Bohmian Mechanics, a particle is a particle and a wave is a wave, which is standard mainstream quantum theory. That's what makes it a viable competitor theory.

No. You're way off base with that nonsense.

I think this satisfies your question.

The only question I asked you was what apparatus I would need to use to detect a Bohmian pilot wave. It is your repeated assertion that those waves are detectable. Remember?

So, tell me how to detect them. That's the only question you need to answer.

Stop stalling and trying to dodge the question. Answer it, or admit you don't have a clue.

Interesting conclusion.

It's based on simple observation of your activity on this forum over a period of years.

I take it you get your information and understanding via divine inspiration instead of books?

Whatever gave you that idea?

Here's what you need to know, Write4U. I have an education. Not just that, but an education that has covered the sorts of things you and I have been discussing.

Listing my specific formal qualifications here would be a pointless exercise. But please be assured that I'm very confident that I outgun you when it comes to qualifications in science, in particular.

So, in answer to your insulting assumption: you are incorrect. I did not acquire my knowledge of science from "divine inspiration". I also did not acquire it from random google searches and basic wikipedia articles.

Yes, I've read lots of science books. But, of course, I've "got my information" from lots of other sources, too. I have been repeatedly formally assessed on my scientific knowledge. You can safely assume that I am highly accredited.

In contrast, I know that you have some qualifications in bookkeeping, which is not exactly science.

Given all this, then, do you really want to question my scientific credentials further? How productive do you imagine that will be?

How do you know my quoted passages are a reference from a first google search instead of selected for clarity from several searches?

Because the sort of stuff you cut and paste can usually be found on the first page of google search results for the most obvious kinds of searches of key words.

Do you know my research habits?

Yes. I'm very familiar with them, because you insist on posting all your "findings" here.

Ared you claiming that you understand how it all works, without answers to the questions you are not supposed to ask?

What are you referring to? What is "it all", in this context?

Do I know enough about Bohm's pilot waves to be able to correct a basic misunderstanding you have about them? Yes, I do. That's all that really matters here, isn't it? I don't have to "understand how it all works". I only have to be able to identify your errors.

Why, over a period of years of studying your idol Bohm and his theory, haven't you learnt the basics? What's your excuse? You're a fan, aren't you? But a fan of something you don't understand at all? That's a strange sort of self-deluding obsession, if you ask me.

Here is another excerpt from a scientific book, selected for clarity.

So what?

It's entirely irrelevant to the claim you made about pilot waves being detectable. That's the claim I asked you to support.

Can you support it, or not?

 

[Write4U]

Then all the accounts you have read are wrong. I've now told you this three times. Pilot waves behave very differently to Schrodinger probability waves. Their function in Bohmian mechanics is completely different from the function that Schrodinger waves play in regular quantum mechanics.

I'm sorry , but it is you who is in error.
The Bohmian wave function behaves the same as Schrodingers probability waves. That is why the results closely match.

In Bohmian mechanics a system of particles is described in part by its wave function, evolving, as usual, according to Schrödinger’s equation. However, the wave function provides only a partial description of the system. This description is completed by the specification of the actual positions of the particles.

The latter evolve according to the “guiding equation”, which expresses the velocities of the particles in terms of the wave function. Thus, in Bohmian mechanics the configuration of a system of particles evolves via a deterministic motion choreographed by the wave function. In particular, when a particle is sent into a two-slit apparatus, the slit through which it passes and its location upon arrival on the photographic plate are completely determined by its initial position and wave function.

Bohmian Mechanics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

and

The de Broglie–Bohm theory[a] is an interpretation of quantum mechanics which postulates that, in addition to the wavefunction, an actual configuration of particles exists, even when unobserved. The evolution over time of the configuration of all particles is defined by a guiding equation. The evolution of the wave function over time is given by the Schrödinger equation. The theory is named after Louis de Broglie (1892–1987) and David Bohm (1917–1992).

De Broglie–Bohm theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The difference between the two theories is that in the Copenhagen Interpretation it is the particles that create the apparent wave function, hence are superposition, whereas in Bohmiamn Mechanics the particles have defined positions riding the Universal Pilotwave.

The results are basically the same as I have demonstrated visually, except that the Bohmian version is more complicated due to the separation of the particles and the wavefunctions.

The Pilot Wave Interpretation

It is well known that both versions arrive at the same result in the double slit experiment.

The Bohmian trajectories for an electron going through the two-slit experiment. A similar pattern was also extrapolated from weak measurements of single photons.

De Broglie–Bohm theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Copenhagen Interpretation

https://lifeboat.com/blog.images/can-the-double-slit-experiment-distinguish-between-quantum-interpretations.jpg

But the Copenhagen Interpretation is by no means complete and unchallenged.

Bohr offered an interpretation that is independent of a subjective observer, or measurement, or collapse; instead, an "irreversible" or effectively irreversible process causes the decay of quantum coherence which imparts the classical behavior of "observation" or "measurement".[28][29][30][31]

According to Bohr's complementarity principle, light is neither a wave nor a stream of particles. A particular experiment can demonstrate particle behavior (passing through a definite slit) or wave behavior (interference), but not both at the same time.[71]

The same experiment has been performed for light, electrons, atoms, and molecules.[72][73] The extremely small de Broglie wavelength of objects with larger mass makes experiments increasingly difficult,[74] but in general quantum mechanics considers all matter as possessing both particle and wave behaviors.

Copenhagen interpretation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

and

The meaning of the wave function of the Universe was actively discussed in 1980s. In most works on quantum cosmology, it is accepted that the wave function is a probability amplitude for the Universe to have some space geometry, or to be found in some point of the Wheeler superspace. It seems that the wave function gives maximally objective description compatible with quantum theory.

https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0218271819410098#

^Which suggests that even in the Copenhagen Interpretation a Universal wave function should be considered.

 

[Write4U]

To follow up on the above.

A retrospective review of von Neumann’s analysis of hidden variables in quantum mechanics​

Robert Golub* [1], Steven K. Lamoreaux [2]

4. Conclusions​

..............

In the case of Bohm’s theory, each particle follows its own trajectory, and the wavefunction is in 3N dimensional space and is even or odd under particle exchange. The hidden variable is the initial position of each particle, which is not an additional degree of freedom because in ordinary quantum mechanics the particle positions are already considered the degrees of freedom. For identical particles, when the initial wavefunction is specified, the even or odd superposition results from the creation of a multiparticle state at each initial position. Overall, there is no surprise that the system evolution is indistinguishable from the usual formulation of quantum mechanics.

A retrospective review of von Neumann’s analysis of hidden variables in quantum mechanics - Academia.edu

Academia.edu is the platform to share, find, and explore 50 Million research papers. Join us to accelerate your research needs & academic interests.

www.academia.edu

 

[exchemist]

To follow up on the above.

A retrospective review of von Neumann’s analysis of hidden variables in quantum mechanics​

Robert Golub* [1], Steven K. Lamoreaux [2]

4. Conclusions​

..............

A retrospective review of von Neumann’s analysis of hidden variables in quantum mechanics - Academia.edu

Academia.edu is the platform to share, find, and explore 50 Million research papers. Join us to accelerate your research needs & academic interests.

www.academia.edu

Nice clear paper, but by selectively quoting only part of the concluding paragraphs, you contrive to dodge (surprise, surprise) its actual findings.

The conclusion says:-

We have shown that examination of the logic of von Neumann’s argument leads to the conclusion that the existence of hidden variables capable of allowing the exact prediction of all physical quantities would mean that quantum mechanics in its present form would have to be false, that is, the existence of hidden variables would contradict quantum mechanics, and their inclusion requires a vastly modified theory. Of course, this follows already from the fact that physical quantities represented by non-commuting operators must satisfy an uncertainty relation.

Another powerful argument against hidden variables has been presented by Pauli. In a letter to Fierz he wrote ([18, 19] Pauli to Fierz, Jan. 6, 1952, p. 499, no 1337):

" I want to call special attention to the thermodynamics of ensembles, consisting of the same type of subensembles (Einstein-Bose or Fermi-Dirac statistics). What is important to me is not the energy values but the statistical weights, further the indifference of the thermodynamic-statistical reasoning to the “wave-particle” alternative and Gibbs’ point that identical or only similar states behave qualitatively differently. If hidden parameters exist, not only on paper, but determine a really different behavior of different single systems (e.g.particles)— according to their “real” values—so must—completely independent of the question of the technical measurability of the parameters—the Einstein-Bose or Fermi-Dirac statistics be completely disrupted. Since there is no basis to assume that the thermodynamic weights should be determined by only half (or a part of) “reality”. Either two states are identical or not (there is no “similar”) and if the ψ function is not a complete description of single systems, states with the same ψ function will not be identical. Every argument with the goal of saving the Einstein-Bose and Fermi-Dirac statistics from the causal parameter mythology must fail because it - taking into account the usual theory in which the ψ function is a complete description of a state—declares the other half of reality to be unreal."

So basically, this paper is saying Bohm's theory is unhelpful to physics, because:

1) if it were correct, that would entail throwing out most of existing QM, i.e. the fundamental concept of observable properties being extracted from the wave function by Hermitian operators, some of which do not commute, which as it stands accords perfectly with observation. So that would take us backwards, not forwards.

2) As Pauli points out, Bohm's theory would render QM incapable of correctly predicting the differences in thermodynamic behaviour between ensembles of bosons and fermions (see section I have highlighted in red). This is a fundamental idea in particle physics, predicted by QM and observed in practice.

3) Also, as the abstract notes, Pauli described Bohm's theory as "an uncashable cheque", in that it has no observable consequences, i.e. it is useless as a scientific theory.

 

[Write4U]

Nice clear paper, but by selectively quoting only part of the concluding paragraphs, you contrive to dodge (surprise, surprise) its actual findings.

The conclusion says:-

Yes, and I quoted :

4. Conclusions: In the case of Bohm's Theory.

" Overall, there is no surprise that the system evolution is indistinguishable from the usual formulation of quantum mechanics."

Verbatim...

 

[exchemist]

Yes, and I quoted :

4. Conclusions: In the case of Bohm's Theory.

" Overall, there is no surprise that the system evolution is indistinguishable from the usual formulation of quantum mechanics."

Verbatim...View attachment 6130

Idiot.

 

[James R]

I'm sorry , but it is you who is in error.

You have pointed out no error on my part, so far. If you can remember back that far, you will recall that I wrote "Pilot waves behave very differently to Schrodinger probability waves. Their function in Bohmian mechanics is completely different from the function that Schrodinger waves play in regular quantum mechanics."

You haven't even engaged with this point, let alone have begun to try to show that I am wrong about it. I doubt you even understand the issue.

The Bohmian wave function behaves the same as Schrodingers probability waves.

The "Bohmian wave function" is not the pilot waves. There are no pilot waves in the Schrodinger description, so they can't possibly "behave the same".

The difference between the two theories is that in the Copenhagen Interpretation it is the particles that create the apparent wave function, hence are superposition, whereas in Bohmiamn Mechanics the particles have defined positions riding the Universal Pilotwave.

Wrong. No particles "create" an "apparent wave function" in the Schrodinger picture. And you don't know what the Copenhagen interpretation is, do you? Your bringing that up is a complete non sequitur in this context.

The results are basically the same as I have demonstrated visually, except that the Bohmian version is more complicated due to the separation of the particles and the wavefunctions.

Are the results the same, or just "basically the same"? If they are only "basically the same", what's the difference? Explain the ways in which they are not the same, if you can. And tell me why you consider Bohm's description useful or superior to the standard Schrodinger picture.

You can't say, can you? It's because, even after all these years, you don't actually understand even the basics of what Bohm proposed, or why he proposed it.

The Pilot Wave Interpretation

It is well known that both versions arrive at the same result in the double slit experiment.

Yes. The observations or "results" are the same.

Do you remember your silly claim about pilot waves? You said, more than once, that pilot waves are detectable. I told you they are not. You claim I am wrong.

Tell us all how pilot waves can be detected, Write4U. Or kindly admit that you have failed to prove me wrong.

But the Copenhagen Interpretation is by no means complete and unchallenged.

Nothing you quoted following this claim concerns any challenge to the Copenhagen interpretation.

^Which suggests that even in the Copenhagen Interpretation a Universal wave function should be considered.

No it doesn't.

This is what happens when you don't understand what you're attempting to talk about, Write4U. You end up in a hopeless muddle, saying untrue things or else blathering mindlessly about nothing, in effect. But the real stupidity lies in convincing yourself, despite all objections and evidence to the contrary, that you actually have some kind of grasp on the subject matter you're trying to discuss.

 

[Write4U]

I'm sorry , but it is you who is in error.

You have pointed out no error on my part, so far. If you can remember back that far, you will recall that I wrote "Pilot waves behave very differently to Schrodinger probability waves. Their function in Bohmian mechanics is completely different from the function that Schrodinger waves play in regular quantum mechanics."

You haven't even engaged with this point, let alone have begun to try to show that I am wrong about it. I doubt you even understand the issue.

OK, then. Here it is.

Bohmian Mechanics
First published Fri Oct 26, 2001; substantive revision Mon Jun 14, 2021

Bohmian mechanics, which is also called the de Broglie-Bohm theory, the pilot-wave model, and the causal interpretation of quantum mechanics, is a version of quantum theory discovered by Louis de Broglie in 1927 and rediscovered by David Bohm in 1952. It is the simplest example of what is often called a hidden variables interpretation of quantum mechanics. In Bohmian mechanics a system of particles is described in part by its wave function, evolving, as usual, according to Schrödinger’s equation.

However, the wave function provides only a partial description of the system. This description is completed by the specification of the actual positions of the particles. The latter evolve according to the “guiding equation”, which expresses the velocities of the particles in terms of the wave function. Thus, in Bohmian mechanics the configuration of a system of particles evolves via a deterministic motion choreographed by the wave function. In particular, when a particle is sent into a two-slit apparatus, the slit through which it passes and its location upon arrival on the photographic plate are completely determined by its initial position and wave function.

more... https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/#

David Bohm’s Pilot Wave Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics​

The result is that in Bohmian mechanics the Schrödinger equation falls apart into two equations. One describes the conservation of probability and determines what the guiding field does. The other determines the position of the particle, and it depends on the guiding field. This second equation is usually called the “guiding equation.” So this is how Bohmian mechanics works. You have particles, and they are guided by a field which in return depends on the particle.

David Bohm’s Pilot Wave Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics

Science News, Physics, Science, Philosophy, Philosophy of Science

backreaction.blogspot.com

This is precisely why Bohmian Mechanics are comparable with the Copenhagen interpretation, but does away with the particle/wave conundrum.
Any problems with versions of BM is with "relativity", not the wave-functions.

 

[Write4U]

And an update on the state of science on Microtubules.
This is already 5 years old but does show the increasing scientific interest in quantum processes in the brain.

Quantum effects in the brain
A review Betony Adams 1 and Francesco Petruccione 1 Quantum Research Group, School of Chemistry and Physics, and National Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, 4001, South Africa. (Dated: 21 October 2019)

In the mid-1990s it was proposed that quantum effects in proteins known as microtubules play a role in the nature of consciousness. The theory was largely dismissed due to the fact that quantum effects were thought unlikely to occur in biological systems, which are warm and wet and subject to decoherence. However, the development of quantum biology now suggests otherwise.

Quantum effects have been implicated in photosynthesis, a process fundamental to life on earth. They are also possibly at play in other biological processes such as avian migration and olfaction. The microtubule mechanism of quantum consciousness has been joined by other theories of quantum cognition. It has been proposed that general anaesthetic, which switches off consciousness, does this through quantum means, measured by changes in electron spin.

The tunnelling hypothesis developed in the context of olfaction has been applied to the action of neurotransmitters. A recent theory outlines how quantum entanglement between phosphorus nuclei might influence the firing of neurons. These, and other theories, have contributed to a growing field of research that investigates whether quantum effects might contribute to neural processing.

This review aims to investigate the current state of this research and how fully the theory is supported by convincing experimental evidence. It also aims to clarify the biological sites of these proposed quantum effects and how progress made in the wider field of quantum biology might be relevant to the specific case of the brain.

Quantum effects in the brain: A review

Quantum effects in the brain: A review

www.academia.edu

We are getting closer.......

 

[exchemist]

And an update on the state of science on Microtubules.
This is already 5 years old but does show the increasing scientific interest in quantum processes in the brain.

Quantum effects in the brain
A review Betony Adams 1 and Francesco Petruccione 1 Quantum Research Group, School of Chemistry and Physics, and National Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, 4001, South Africa. (Dated: 21 October 2019)

Quantum effects in the brain: A review

Quantum effects in the brain: A review

www.academia.edu

We are getting closer.......View attachment 6158

This, once again, is taken from the non peer reviewed place where Reiku publishes his junk: https://independent.academia.edu/GarethMeredith

It was published on this dubious site in 2020, i.e. 4 years ago. Wake me up when it gets published somewhere credible.

 

[Write4U]

OK, as requested. From 2024

This seems to answer the objection that the "noisy, wet" environment of the brain prevents quantum processes.

J Phys Chem B. 2024 May 2; 128(17): 4035–4046.
Published online 2024 Apr 19. doi: 10.1021/acs.jpcb.3c07936

Ultraviolet Superradiance from Mega-Networks of Tryptophan in Biological Architectures

N. S. Babcock,† G. Montes-Cabrera,†‡ K. E. Oberhofer,§ M. Chergui,§ G. L. Celardo,∥ and P. Kurian*†

Networks of tryptophan (Trp)—an aromatic amino acid with strong fluorescence response—are ubiquitous in biological systems, forming diverse architectures in transmembrane proteins, cytoskeletal filaments, subneuronal elements, photoreceptor complexes, virion capsids, and other cellular structures.

We analyze the cooperative effects induced by ultraviolet (UV) excitation of several biologically relevant Trp mega-networks, thus giving insights into novel mechanisms for cellular signaling and control. Our theoretical analysis in the single-excitation manifold predicts the formation of strongly superradiant states due to collective interactions among organized arrangements of up to >105 Trp UV-excited transition dipoles in microtubule architectures, which leads to an enhancement of the fluorescence quantum yield (QY) that is confirmed by our experiments.

We demonstrate the observed consequences of this superradiant behavior in the fluorescence QY for hierarchically organized tubulin structures, which increases in different geometric regimes at thermal equilibrium before saturation, highlighting the effect’s persistence in the presence of disorder. Our work thus showcases the many orders of magnitude across which the brightest (hundreds of femtoseconds) and darkest (tens of seconds) states can coexist in these Trp lattices.

Much more..... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11075083/

And for laymen like myself, I have included this excellent video explaining the history and process of ORCH OR (quantum brain processes)

 

[exchemist]

OK, as requested. From 2024

This seems to answer the objection that the "noisy, wet" environment of the brain prevents quantum processes.


Ultraviolet Superradiance from Mega-Networks of Tryptophan in Biological Architectures

View attachment 6159



Much more..... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11075083/

And for laymen like myself, I have included this excellent video explaining the history and process of ORCH OR (quantum brain processes)

No it doesn’t. We discussed this some months ago: https://www.sciforums.com/threads/philosophy-updates.166232/page-7#post-3728459

As my comments in that thread indicate, this has nothing to do with information processing or even transmission.

 

[Write4U]

As my comments in that thread indicate, this has nothing to do with information processing or even transmission.

Well, that comes next. You rightly brought attention to the assumption of a noisy, wet environment, unsuitable for any kind of quantum communication. Now that these goal posts have been moved, are you denying that there is any information being processed at all?

Let me repeat the main statement.

Networks of tryptophan (Trp)—an aromatic amino acid with strong fluorescence response—are ubiquitous in biological systems, forming diverse architectures in transmembrane proteins, cytoskeletal filaments, subneuronal elements, photoreceptor complexes, virion capsids, and other cellular structures.

Does this suggest information processing of some kind? Thinking?

Microtubule Motors and Movements - The Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

We're dealing with few physical options here, unless you want to get metaphysical, and even that suggests quantum communication.

Can you suggest a more reasonable solution, now that the noisy, wet problem has been addressed? How does the brain continuously process the sensory information, processed and fed by neurons, of trillions of quantum bits of information?

The human brain can process 11 million bits of information every second. But our conscious minds can handle only 40 to 50 bits of information a second. https://www.npr.org/2020/07/14/891140598/understanding-unconscious-bias#

Hence ORCH OR (ORCHestrated Objective Reduction) or IIT (Integrated Information Theory). There is only one network available that has now been identified. A step forward? Apparently, we can progress with thorough knowledge of microtubule (and related organelles) functions.

I am encouraged by that news, aren't you?

 

[exchemist]

Well, that comes next. You rightly brought attention to the assumption of a noisy, wet environment, unsuitable for any kind of quantum communication. Now that these goal posts have been moved, are you denying that there is any information being processed at all?

Let me repeat the main statement.

Does this suggest information processing of some kind? Thinking?

Microtubule Motors and Movements - The Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

We're dealing with few physical options here, unless you want to get metaphysical, and even that suggests quantum communication.

Can you suggest a more reasonable solution, now that the noisy, wet problem has been addressed? How does the brain continuously process the sensory information, processed and fed by neurons, of trillions of quantum bits of information?


Hence ORCH OR (ORCHestrated Objective Reduction) or IIT (Integrated Information Theory). There is only one network available that has now been identified. A step forward? Apparently, we can progress with thorough knowledge of microtubule (and related organelles) functions.

I am encouraged by that news, aren't you?

You are only encouraged because you have no understanding of what this is about.

As I explained in the other thread that I linked, "superradiance" is a form of fluorescence, effectively, in which an array of tryptophan molecules is able to absorb and emit with particular efficiency. I quote what I said in that thread: "This seems to be about tryptophan, an amino acid with an aromatic ring, absorbing in the UV (so far, so unremarkable) but doing so and then reradiating via a process involving a geometrical array of tryptophan molecules rather than isolated ones. I'll neeed to read up on what "super radiance" is but it is a collective effect.

Obviously this will be a "quantum" effect because any absorption and emission of light is a quantum process. So that in itself is not exciting - and in particular has nothing to do with so-called quantum computing."

Nobody who knows what they are talking about has ever claimed that absorption and emission of light by molecules can't go on in a warm and wet environment. Sure it is a "quantum" process, but big deal, so is the process responsible for the colour of any dye, or even the colour of raspberry jam. All chemistry and all biochemistry involves quantum processes. All manner of these go on quite happily in the warm, wet, noisy environment of the cell.

Shapiro/Tegmark's (valid) objection to the Orch OR hypothesis is that it, specifically, proposes entanglement between electrons in adjacent π-bonded systems in microtubules and suggests that might enable them to act as quantum computers. It is this entanglement that seems impossible to sustain in the warm, wet noisy environment of the cell.

So the "warm wet problem" you refer to is not addressed by this finding about superradiance. It's quite a different subject, closer to a sort of laser action than anything else. What couples the π-systems together in this case is a combined emission of light. This is different from a supposed entanglement of electrons in their ground states.

(Though superradiance in microtubules is interesting to me, as it suggests, to me at least, a possible common origin of microtubules and the light-harvesting structures of photosynthesis in modern plants.)

 

[James R]

Write4U:

Do you now agree with me that Bohm's pilot waves (described by his "guiding equation") behave very differently from the waves in Schrodinger's description of quantum mechanics?

Or not?

Have you learned anything?