Importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes

Physical Review E - Statistical Physics, Plasmas, Fluids, and Related Interdisciplinary Topics

Volumn 61, Issue 4, 2000, Pages 4194-4206

  Tegmark, Max ^a,b  

^a INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED STUDY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DEGREES OF FREEDOM (MECHANICS); QUANTUM COMPUTERS; QUANTUM ELECTRONICS; QUANTUM OPTICS;

CLASSICAL APPROACH; COGNITIVE PROCESS; DECOHERENCE RATES; DECOHERENCE TIME SCALE; NEURAL NETWORK SIMULATIONS; QUANTUM COHERENCE; QUANTUM DECOHERENCE; QUANTUM SYSTEM;

COMPUTER SIMULATION;

ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORK; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; BIOMETRY; BIOPHYSICS; BRAIN; COGNITION; ENTROPY; HUMAN; MICROTUBULE; NERVE CELL; PHYSIOLOGY; QUANTUM THEORY;

BIOMETRY; BIOPHYSICAL PHENOMENA; BIOPHYSICS; BRAIN; COGNITION; ENTROPY; HUMANS; MICROTUBULES; MODELS, NEUROLOGICAL; NEURAL NETWORKS (COMPUTER); NEURONS; QUANTUM THEORY;

EID: 33748688794     PISSN: 1063651X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.61.4194     Document Type: Article

References (87)

1. R. Penrose, The Emperor’s New Mind (Oxford University Press, New York, 1989).
2. R. Penrose, in The Large, the Small and the Human Mind, edited by M. Longair (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1997).
3. H. P. Stapp, Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics (Springer, Berlin, 1993).
4. D. J. Amit, Modeling Brain Functions (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1989).
5. M. Mézard, G. Parisi, and M. Virasoro, Spin Glass Theory and Beyond (World Scientific, Singapore, 1993).
6. R. L. Harvey, Neural Network Principles (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1994).
7. F. H. Eeckman and J. M. Bower, Computation and Neural Systems (Boston, Kluwer, 1993).
8. D. R. McMillen, G. M. T D’Eleuterio, and J. R. P Halperin, Phys. Rev. E 59, 6 (1999).
9. E. P. Wigner, in The Scientist Speculates: An Anthology of Partly-Baked Ideas, edited by I. J. Good (Heinemann, London, 1962), pp. 284–3021.
10. J. Mehra and A. S. Wightman, The Collected Works of E. P. Wigner (Springer, Berlin, 1995), Vol. VI, p. 271.
11. H. D. Zeh, Found. Phys. 1, 69 (1970).
12. E. H. Walker, Math. Biosci. 7, 131 (1970).
13. L. H. Domash, in Scientific Research on TM, edited by D. W. Orme-Johnson and J. T. Farrow (Maharishi University Press, Weggis, Switzerland, 1977).
14. H. P. Stapp, Phys. Rev. D 28, 1386 (1983).
15. I. N. Marshall, New Ideas Psychol. 7, 73 (1989).
16. D. Zohar, The Quantum Self (Morrow, New York, 1990).
17. H. Rosu, Metaphys. Rev. 3, 1 (1997).
18. L. M. Ricciardi and H. Umezawa, Kibernetik 4, 44 (1967).
19. A. Vitiello, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 9, 973 (1996).
20. S. R. Hameroff and R. C. Watt, J. Theor. Biol. 98, 549 (1982)
21. S. R. Hameroff, Ultimate Computing: Biomolecular Consciousness and Nanotechnology (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1987).
22. D. V. Nanopoulos, e-print hep-ph/9505374.
23. N. Mavromatos and D. V. Nanopoulos, e-print hep-ph/9505401.
24. N. Mavromatos and D. V. Nanopoulos, e-print quant-ph/9510003.
25. N. Mavromatos and D. V. Nanopoulos, e-print quant-ph/9512021.
26. N. Mavromatos and D. V. Nanopoulos, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 12, 517 (1998).
27. N. Mavromatos and D. V. Nanopoulos, e-print quant-ph/9802063.
28. N. Mavromatos, J. Bioelectrochem. Bioenergetics 48, 273 (1999).
29. H. P. Stapp, Found. Phys. 21, 1451 (1991)
30. S. R. Hameroff, Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. A 356, 1869 (1998).
31. H. D. Zeh, Epistemological Letters of the Ferdinand-Gonseth Association (Biel, Switzerland, 1981).
32. W. H. Zurek, Phys. Today 44 (10), 36 (1991).
33. A. Scott, J. Consciousness Studies 6, 484 (1996).
34. S. Hawking, in The Large, the Small and the Human Mind, edited by M. Longair (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1997).
35. K. Hepp, in Quantum Future, edited by P. Blanchard and A. Jadczyk (Springer, Berlin, 1999).
36. J. von Neumann, Matematische Grundlagen der Quanten-Mechanik (Springer, Berlin, 1932).
37. H. D. Zeh, The Arrow of Time, 3rd ed. (Springer, Berlin, 1999).
38. W. H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D 24, 1516 (1981).
39. W. H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D 26, 1862 (1982).
40. W. H. Zurek, in Non-Equilibrium Statistical Physics, edited by G. Moore and M. O. Sculy (Plenum, New York, 1984).
41. E. Peres, Am. J. Phys. 54, 688 (1986).
42. P. Pearle, Phys. Rev. A 39, 2277 (1989).
43. M. R. Gallis and G. N. Fleming, Phys. Rev. A 42, 38 (1989).
44. W. H. Unruh and W. H. Zurek, Phys. Rev. D 40, 1071 (1989).
45. R. Omnès, Phys. Rev. A 56, 3383 (1997).
46. D. Giulini, E. Joos, C. Kiefer, J. Kupsch, I. O. Stamatescu, and H. D. Zeh, Decoherence and the Appearance of a Classical World in Quantum Theory (Springer, Berlin, 1996).
47. E. Joos and H. D. Zeh, Z. Phys. B: Condens. Matter 59, 223 (1985).
48. M. Tegmark, Found. Phys. Lett. 6, 571 (1993).
49. Decoherence picks out a preferred basis in the quantum-mechanical Hilbert space, termed the “pointer basis” by Zurek 36, in which superpositions are rapidly destroyed and classical behavior is approached. This normally includes the position basis, which is why we never experience superpositions of objects in macroscopically different positions. Decoherence is quite generic. Although it has been claimed that this preferred basis consists of the maximal set of commuting observables that also commute with (Formula presented) (the “microstable basis” of Omnès 43), this is in fact merely a sufficient condition, not a necessary one. If (Formula presented) for some observable x but (Formula presented) for its conjugate p, then the interaction will indeed cause decoherence for x as advertised. But this will happen even if (Formula presented)—all that matters is that (Formula presented) i.e., that the interaction Hamiltonian contains (“measures”) x.
50. R. P. Feynman, Statistical Mechanics (Benjamin, Reading, MA, 1972).
51. B. Katz, Nerve, Muscle, and Synapse (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1966).
52. J. P. Schadé and D. H. Ford, Basic Neurology, 2nd ed. (Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1973).
53. A. G. Cairns-Smith, Evolving the Mind (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1996).
54. P. Morell and W. T. Norton, Sci. Am. 242, 74 (1980).
55. A. Hirano and J. A. Llena, in The Axon, edited by S. G. Waxman, J. D. Kocsis, and P. K. Stys (Oxford University Press, New York, 1995).
56. J. M. Ritchie, in The Axon, edited by S. G. Waxman, J. D. Kocsis, and P. K. Stys (Oxford University Press, New York, 1995).
57. J. Ellis, S. Mohanty, and D. V. Nanopoulos, Phys. Lett. B 221, 113 (1989).
58. P. Pearle, Phys. Rev. D 13, 857 (1976).
59. G. C. Ghirardi, A. Rimini, and T. Weber, Phys. Rev. D 34, 470 (1986).
60. J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics (Wiley, New York, 1975).
61. W. H. Zurek, S. Habib, and J. P. Paz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1187 (1993).
62. M. Tegmark and H. S. Shapiro, Phys. Rev. E 50, 2538 (1994).
63. M. V. Satarić, J. A. Tuszyński, and R. B. Žakula, Phys. Rev. E 48, 589 (1993).
64. H. C. Rosu, J. Inszynski, and A. Gonzalez, Phys. Rev. E 55, 2038 (1997).
65. H. C. Rosu, Nuovo Cimento D 20, 369 (1998).
66. If n bits of information are exchanged with the environment, then Eq. (3) shows that the object entropy will increase by this same amount if the environment is in thermal equilibrium (with maximal entropy) throughout. If we were to know the state of the environment initially (by our definition of environment, we do not), then both the object and environment entropy will typically increase by (Formula presented) bits.
67. H. Everett III, Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 454 (1957);The Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, B. S. DeWitt and N. Graham (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1986).
68. Here and throughout, we are assuming that the total system, which is by definition isolated, evolves according to the Schrödinger equation (1). Although modifications of the Schrödinger equation have been suggested by some authors, either in a mathematically explicit form as in Refs. 5657 or verbally as a so-called reduction postulate, there is so far no experimental evidence suggesting that modifications are necessary. The original motivations for such modifications were (1) to be able to interpret the diagonal elements of the density matrix as probabilities, and (2) to suppress off-diagonal elements of the density matrix. The subsequent discovery by Everett 65 that the probability interpretation automatically appears to hold for almost all observers in the final superposition solved problem 1, and is discussed in more detail in, e.g., 2967686970717273747576. The still more recent discovery of decoherence 113637 solved problem 2, as well as explaining so-called superselection rules for the first time (why, for instance, the position basis has a special status) 44.
69. J. A. Wheeler, Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 463 (1957)
70. L. M. Cooper and D. van Vechten, Am. J. Phys. 37, 1212 (1969)
71. B. S. DeWitt, Phys. Today 23 (9), 30 (1971).
72. M. Lockwood, Mind, Brain and the Quantum (Blackwell, Cambridge, U.K., 1989).
73. D. Deutsch The Fabric of Reality (Allen Lane, New York, 1997).
74. D. N. Page, e-print gr-qc/9507025.
75. M. J. Donald, e-print quant-ph/9703008.
76. M. J. Donald, e-print quant-ph/9904001.
77. L. Vaidman, Int. Stud. Phil. Sci. (to be published), e-print quant-ph/9609006.
78. T. Sakaguchi, e-print quant-ph/9704039.
79. M. Tegmark, Fortschr. Phys. 46, 855 (1997).
80. M. Tegmark, Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) 270, 1 (1998).
81. W. James, The Principles of Psychology (Holt, New York, 1890).
82. W. James 1904, in The Writings of William James, edited by J. J. McDermott (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1977), pp. 169–183.
83. A. Eddington, Space, Time & Gravitation (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1920).
84. A. M. Lisewski, e-print quant-ph/9907052.
85. E. P. Wigner, Phys. Rev. 40, 749 (1932)
86. M. Hillery, R. H. O’Connell, M. O. Scully, and E. P. Wigner, Phys. Rep. 106, 121 (1984)
87. Y. S. Kim and M. E. Noz, Phase Space Picture of Quantum Mechanics: Group Theoretical Approach (World Scientific, Singapore, 1991).