Re: macroscopic quantum coherence in the brain

Date: Sun, 11 Aug 1996 07:39:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mariela Szirko <Postmaster@neubio.sld.ar>
To: quantum-d@teleport.com
Subject: Re: macroscopic quantum coherence in the brain

Dear Matti (Matti Pitkanen <matpitka@rock.helsinki.fi>),

I am grateful for you having declared us, these consciousness
people, as open minded; I cannot believe :-) it but I shall try,
I promise!  To such end I first need that you also help me on
two points of your abstract; I cannot enter on your homepage
because I have only e-mail (not full WWW).

Before, let me put a marginal comment regarding your biological
remarks, as this:

> Microtubules could also give rise to elementary sense of vision
> for cells in infrared region and  there is empirical evidence for this
> in case of some monocellular organisms [Albrecht- Buehler].

Infrared photoreception in Protozoa is known since the XIX century,
and all the six kingdoms of terrestrial Eukaryota have microtubules
and at least one of the empire Bacteria also has.  But the notice
that the physiology of photoreception depends on microtubules
non sequitur; anyway, it is not relevant to our need of understanding
the theoretical possibilities for macroscopic coherence in the
electromagnetic skeleton of the sentient tissue. The same on
centrioles and related organellae, in whose biophysics I feel
myself more at home.  You did mention the identification by Popp
of some centriole generated biophotons as Bose Einstein conden-
sate. (Please add the year, 1981 and the third author, Nagl, W.;
and correct spelling of Prof. M. Rattemeyer).  I do not remember
having read it;  however, I read both reviews in Experientia (1988,
1992) on biophoton emission and a number of other writings.
Presently, I would surely say that specifically *centriole-generated*
biophotons are not conclusively affirmed by a majority of qualified
observers.  (Because of other important reasons, remote to this
mail, such centriole specificity would be of great significance.)
So, at least for the present, I see no motive to chain your work
to such still dubious specific emission (which I am prone
to believe of) since, in general, the electromagnetic skeleton
of every organ, and specially that of the neurocognitive
parenchymae, surely includes biophotons (though the expe-
rimental evidence for *tissue-specific* excitons and plasmons
is still scarce, and for solitons null).  Almost the same I would
say regarding ephapses or gap junctions as creating membrane
superconductors and electrets, and more *experimental* work is
imperatively needed now in these fields.  Contrarily, IMHO the search
for a general mechanism, and for devising a convincing test for
its different stages, can be certainly done just upon the general
occurrence of such photons and transfers, and the physiological
constraints on their production, without need of getting physicists
much involved in the observational quarrels of physiologists.

Most electroneurobiologists shall certainly require, from
every quantum scenario, the depiction of a testable mechanism
accounting for macroscopic Bose Einstein condensates;
so, even from my shallow formation in quantum physics,
I surely agree on the soundness of this focusing. My questions
are connected with the posting I made last weekend; the
impending outcalculations, therein mentioned, might provide you
some boundary conditions. And the central question
(the last one there) I hope could be connected with what follows:

1. Would you be so kind as to explain to me conceptually
what extremals are, specially your mentioned *vacuum
and massless extremals of Kahler action* and *sourceless*
Kahler fields?

2. Nonvanishing gauge current densities, you said, *couple* to
quantized boson fields. This coupling also eludes me, probably
because of my formation as neuroscientist and biochemist, and
jails me into a pre-Hippocratic "similia similibus" exegesis.
How gauge fields, as non-bounded spatially, do couple with mole-
cular condensates that are not its source?  That is, Why a given
gauge-field current density shall exchange photons with this or that
molecule exhibiting a photonic condensate rather than, instead, with
the "dormant" one lacking condensation but still having field sources?

Excuse me if this is very stupid, but this much basic "skipping" quan-
dary seems to me the inverse of the non-locality one: If the current
densities couple *promiscuously* with any molecule's condensate,
"shunting" all them but not the "dormant" ones, the coherence you get
is that of the "shunting" gauge field, not one selfimposed by interaction
of the condensates on the different molecules. Bridges support circulation,
but not make it macroscopic (and could not transmit neither cars, nor fa-
lling lightnings, if these just on their arrival were made a part of the
bridge). This seems to me so, just because, otherwise, the Bose Einstein
condensates ought to be dealt with as if they were oscillators; and,
thence, the pacemaker would need another, in an infinite regress.
In my ignorance, I suppose dealing with Bose Einstein condensates
as if they were oscillators is not feasible; so I asked last Sunday for
how to think about "time coupling" of brain's EEG background fields
*apart* of spatial displacements of their source charge carriers.

Or, does the nonvanishing current densities' being a "generic
phenomenon" imply a connection with time transformation, that
preserves the successive condensations on one given substrate
(molecule, microtubule) for the earlier to influence the following?
It occurs to me that, to *automatically* generate coherent states
as a collective of the substrate's condensations, interaction is
needed (across some bridge, that might be provided by the absolute
value of current densities of the vacuum field). This interaction
is called for working to make the BE condensations engaging into time
transformation also coherently, earning the label of "active" you
bestowed on them.

It is singular to me have contact with Helsinki; shortly ago, my
boss brought also some papers he wrote in a short stay there,
on travel from S. Petersburg, and now your posting came.  On his
words, I imagined your city and your summer (it was cloudy and
raining in July, no?  I hope now you have bright sun and good
moon!), seven hours in advance from here; not before having such
good images conjured up, I began trying to grasp the intuitions
you kindly attempt to share after your 18-year dedication.  So
many thanks in advance for your good will!

               Cheeries for everybody,
                  Mariela

=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
       Prof. Mariela Szirko,
       

       Centro de Investig. Neurobiologicas, Ministry of Health
& Welfare, Argentine Republic; and
       Lab. of Electroneurobiological Res., Neuropsychiatric
Hospital "Dr. Jose Tiburcio Borda", Municipality of Buenos Aires,
       Office:  Phone/Fax (54 1) 306 -7314
                e-mail <Postmaster@neubio.sld.ar>
       Standard disclaimer: Las opiniones de este mensaje son
personales y no comprometen las dependencias a cargo de la firmante
  Reply to THIS message,  ONLY to: <postmaster@neubio.sld.ar>
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=