bier, quantum consciousness (skeptic 2010)

8/3/2019 Bier, Quantum Consciousness (Skeptic 2010)

1/5

Quantum

Consciousness andOther Spooky MythsQuantum mechanics is m ysterious. Consciousness ismysterious. The thought that there m ay be a connectionhas led to a lot of quantum biological pseudoscience.B Y M A R T I N B I E R

ABOUT A HUNDREDYEARS HAVE PASSED sincequantum mechanics was first developed. Quantummechanics proved very successful in describingwhat is happening on th e atomic level. The emissionof light by objects when they are heated up (e.g., alight bulb), spectral lines, and later things like super-conductivity, superfluidity, and th e laser could bewell understood and described with quantum me-chanics.

Quantum mechanics is not an approximation oran ad hoc trick to make the eq uations agree with real-ity and with each other. It is a fundamental theorythat is supposed to describe what is really happen ingat the subatom ic level.A wave function is the basis ofthe theory and Schrdinger's equation, named afterthe German physicist Erwin Schrdinger, explainsthe evolution of that wave function over time. Theequation is linear and for many specific cases thereis an exact solution or, at least, a good way to ap-proximate the solution. However, a problem ariseswhen you want to leave the m ath for a moment totry to understand what is happening when an ob-servation is made on a system on the atomic level.

In quantum mechanics a particlefor instancean electronis represented by the aforementionedwave function. The electron is then no longer apoint particle, buta wave, or som ething like a rip-pling of the water in a pond ; a rippling that is si-multaneously present at more than one spot.Suppose you have a device that takes the outcom eof an atomic level event, amplifies it, and makes itvisible on a macroscopic level, such as a Geigercounter. What is supposed to happen when the ob-servation is made is that the w ave function col-lapses onto one of its coordinate axes. Such

coordinate axes are not to be thought ofas tangiblegeometrical objects w ith real directions in thre e di-mension2J space. They are part ofa mathematicalmodel in which th ere may be infinitely many suchaxes. There is no equation that describes th e col-lapse. The nu merical outcom e of the ob servationdepend s on which of the coordinate axes the wavefunction collapses on. It is only prob abilities tha tare associated with th e different coordinate axesthat cm be derived from Schrdinger's equation.

"Observation" is a somewhat vague notion andmany physicists have a problem w ith its central rolein quantum m echanics. Furthermore, the elementof randomness in the collapse of the wave functionis troublesome, and led to Einstein's famous rem arkthat "God does not playdice." Richard Feynman, inhis 1967 book. The Ch aracter of Physical Law,noted: "I think I can safely say that nobody under-stands quan tum mechanics."' It is this spooky as-pect of quantum mechanics that leads some tospeculate wildly on possible connections to con-sciousness and other aspects of human psychology.

Our story begins with the N obel Prize winning

physicist Eugene Wigner, who stood somewhatalone in his conviction th at consciousness is re-quired to make the wave function collapsethat is,that hum an tho ught can act as an "observation" totrigger the collapse of the wave function in a quan-tum event. Wigner died in1995.That was one yearafter the Queen of England knighted Roger Penrose,who basically inverted Wigner's idea. According toPenrose, consciousness is a consequence of the col-lapse of quantum mechanical wave functions.

Roger Penrose had built an impressive recordin physics before he devoted himself at a later age

40 SKEPTIC MA GAZINE volume 16 number 1 2010


2/5

to the quantum origins of life and consciousness.His 1997 book. The Large, the Small, and the HumanMind, contains a concise and very readable expla-nation of his quantum-biological theories.^Through many examples, Penrose argues that the

human mind does not operate algorithmically. Ac-cording to Penrose, the way in which we analyze amove in a chess game, for exam ple, is more tha njust a sequence of procedures. There is somethingelse going on, and that something else may befound, Penrose argues along with his colleague, theanesthesiologist StuartHameroff, in the cytoskele-ton of neurons that, they believe, harbor the equiv-alent of a quantum computer. The operationscarried out by this quantum computer are whatlead to consciousness.

How? Every cell that is larger than a bacterium

has a cytoskeletona kind ofa network of supportbeams tha t gives the living cell structural reinforce-ment. A microtubule (Figure 1) isa very stiff poly-mer and it is the mdn constituen t of thecytoskeleton. The monomers in a microtubule areproteins that consist of about 800 amino acids. Twoconformational states are {ssible for each individ-ual monomer. By associating these states vdth the 0and the 1 of the digital code ofa computer, Penroseand Hameroff believe they have found the basis forthe brain acting as a computer. It is a quantum com-puter, they argue, because for each mo nomer the

wave function is suspended b etween th e two states.The two different conformational states have differ-ent electric dipoles. The dipoles of neighboringmonom ers can "feel" and affect each other and, inthis way, the monom ers intera ct. This would enta n-gle the involved wave functions and lead the micro-tubule to operate like a working quantum computer.

The cytoskeleton differs ftom a customary net-work of support beam s in that it is in continuousmotion. Cells grow, shrink, and chang e shape all thetime. For nerve cells the dim ensions of the synapsescan be changed through the growing or the shrink-

ing of the microtubules. It is at these synapses tha tsignals are being transferred from one cell to thenext. According to P enrose andHameroff, it is atthese synapses that the nervous system is connectedto the m icrotubule netwo rk, and it is there th at theyinteract to produce consciousness.

How? Suppose an electron can exist in twostates"spin up" and "spin down." The wave func-tion would the n be suspended between these twostates. According to Penrose, there is a gravitationalattraction between these two states. His idea is thatthe wave function collapses onto o ne of these states

when the energy that is associated with the gravita-tional attraction becomes too large. For the micro-tubule this is supposed to work as follows: everymonomer consists oftwo clusters and the distancebetween these two clusters is different in the 0 andth e 1 state. It is a small difference: only te nth s ofananom eter. Gravity leads to an attractive force be-tween th ese two clusters and tha t force is differentin the 0 and 1 state. In the electrochemical realityof the cell, this gravity is completely overw helmedby electrostatic interactions and the thermal mo-tion of the molecules. But, according to Penrose,gravity is essential for th e collapse of the wave func-tion. Two states with a gravitational energy differ-ence AE ca n coexist, according to Penrose, in awave function for a time At as long as AE and At arewithin the limits that are set by Heisenberg's uncer-

tainty re lation, i.e. AE x Atmh/2n. The symbol hrepresen ts Planck's cons tant, wh ich is a very smallnumber (6.6 x 10 '' ] s).

It is not hard to compute th at the combinedwave function of about a billion mon omers lastsaround one second in Penrose's scheme . For a heav-ier object such as a hum an being, the wave functioncollapses within 10 ' seconds according to thequantum gravitational model of Penrose. For

Figure 1An artist's concept of a microtubule a very stiff poly-mer that makes up the ma jor part o f the cytoskeleton of a neuron.This tube is the location of Penrose and Hameroff s hypothesizedconsciousness-generating "quantum computer."

Every little square on the microtubule is a monom eranindividual protein of about 800 amino acids. The polymer tube isa spiral made up of 13 monomers per winding with a diameter of 23nanometers. Redrawn from an image by Graham Johnson publishedon the cover of tfte Journal of Cell Biology,Vol. 151 (2000).

volume 16 number 1 20 10 W W W. S K E P T I C . C O M 4 1


3/5

P R I N C E T O NU N I V E R S I T YP R E S S

SuperstitionBelief in the Age of Science

Robert L Park

"Bob Park is a sceptic'ssceptic, a consummate criticalthinker, a no-nonsensescientist who knows baloneywhen he detects it . . . .Superstition is more than anentertaining romp throughthe weird and wonderful. Itis an importa nt contributio nto the sceptical literature . . .that every scientist needs to

be aware of."Michael Shermer,Nature Physics

Paper $16.95 978-0-691-14597-6

800.777.4726press.princeton.edu

H o w t oD e b a t eACrea t ion i s t

O N LY $ 5 . 0 0E A C H

PARTI:B A C K G R O U N D : W h a t I s E v o lu t io n ? W h a t t h etheo ryo fevo lu t ions a y s , a n dd o e snot say. ;D e b a t e sa b o u t e v o l u t io n a m o n g s c i e n t i s t s ; S c i e n c e a n d R e l i -g i o n ;D e b a t i n ga Crea t ion i s t :A nE v e n i n g Wi th D u a n eT.G i s h ;Crea t ionmytho logya r o u n dt h e w o r l d .

PARTII ;OLD AND NEWCREATIONISM; 25C r e a t i o n i s tA r g u m e n t sa n d 2 5Evo lu t ion i s tA n s w e r s .Ph i lo soph ica l ly baseda r g u m e n t s : l - 1 2 ;Sc ien t i f i ca l ly baseda r g u m e n t s : 1 3 -2 5

PARTIII:TH ENEW NEWC R E AT IO N I S M : I n t e l l ig e n t D e s i g n T h e o r y. T h e E v o l u t io n o fC r e a t i o n is m : ( 1 ) T h e a t t e m p t t o b a n e v o l u ti o n ; (2 ) T h e d e m a n d f o r e q u a l t im e f o rG e n e s i s ; (3 )P r e s e n t i n gc r e a t i o n i s m a s s c i e n c e ; W h y c r e a t i o n i s m i s n o t s c i e n c e . T h eU .S . S u p re m e C o u r t e n d s t h e n e w c r e a t io n i s m . T h eR i s eo f I n t e l l i g e n t D e s i g nT h e o r y : Te nI n t e l li g e n t D e s i g n A r g u m e n t s& Te nA n s w e r s . T h e N a t u r e o f th e D e s i g n e r ; M e t h o d o l o g i c a l S u p e r n a t u r a l i s m ; I n t e l li -g e n t D e s i g n I n t e r v e n t i o n ; I rr e d u c i b l e C o m p l e x i ty ; In f e r e n c e t o D e s i g n ; T h e U n i -v e r s e & L i fe f i n e T u n e d ; E x p l a n a t o r y G a p s ; T h e C o n s e r v a t i o n o f I n f o r m a t io n &t h e E x p l a n a t o ry f il t e r ; S c ie n c e E d u c a t io n & D e b a t i n g E v o l u t i o n ; N o n - R e l ig i o u sC o m m i t m e n t s

H o w t o D e b a t e A C r e a t i o n i s t. C a t a l o gN o .P B 0 0 7 . 2 8 p a g e s , 8 7 2 X 1 1 b o o k l e t.A s k a b o u t d is c o u n t r a t e s fo r m u l t i p l e c o p ie s fo r d a s s r o o m u s e .

O R D E R O N T H E CO L O R E D TE A R S H E ET AT T H E BA C K O F T H E M A G A Z I N EO R AT S K E P T IC .C O M

lighter ohjects such as an electron or a proton, thewave function can persist for many millions ofyears. But for a polymer-like microtubule, the sur-vival timescale of the wave function is one tha tcould he relevant for the operation of the nervous

system. The hasic idea of Penrose and Hameroff isthat the microtuhule quantum computer starts cal-culating, hut that after about a second the calcula-tion is terminated by the quan tum gravitationalcollapse of the wave function. The cytoskeletonwould at that moment effectively transfer the stateof the calculation to the nervous system. Becausethe precise mom ent of termination is not algorith-mically determined, this hypercomputer tran-scends algorithmicity. It is in this way that,according to Penrose andHameroff, we experiencea "mom ent of consciousness" about every second.

With this idea, the anesthesiologist Hamerofffeels that he is on to solving one of the greatestfundamen tal problems of anesthesiology. It is stillnot fully understood why certain chemicals lead toanesthesia and others do not. The key here, accord-ing to Hameroff, is not to be found in the interac-tion between the cinesthetics and the nerve cells,but, instead, in the interaction between the anes-thetics and the m icrotuhule.

As ingenious as the theories of Penrose andHameroff a r e , a great many very reasonable objec-tions have heen formulated against them. At the

end of his book.The L arge, the Small, and theHuman Mind, there are three essays by prom inentcolleagues of Penrose critical of his theory. Penroseis somewhat alone in his idea that hum an thinkingdoes not proceed algorithmically, and one essay ex-amines this. The shortest essay is from none otherthan Stephen H awking, who points out that invok-ing quantum gravitation as a criterion for the col-lapse of the wave function is questiona ble. T hereare other mechanisms that lead to a much quickercollapse.

In the original formulation of quantum me-

chanics it is "measurement" that causes the col-lapse of the wave function. Nowadays, however,there are not m any physicists who believe that theconsciousness ofa measuring human being is theonly way to trigger such a collapse. Any distur-bance of the wave function, it is now thought,leads to collapse. Such a disturbance can be ameasurem ent, but it can also be an interactionwith another particle. In this way it is legitimate toput two proteins and their interaction in one wavefunction. But as soon as a molecule from the sur-rounding solvent comes even near one of the pro-

42 SKEPTIC MAGAZIN E volume 16 number 1 2010


4/5

teins, it is over and th e wave function collapses.In a 2OOO article in Physical Review E, Max

Tegmark worked out the numbers associated withthis objection.' He demonstrated that the collisionsbetween the microtubule and the w ater and ionsfirom the surrou nding solution make th e micro-tubule-wave function collapse within10 ' seconds.That is much faster tha n th e one second yielded byquantum gravitation. The10 " seconds is also muchfaster th an th e timescale at which th e nervous sys-tem operates. The reception, processing, and trans-fer of a signal through the nervous system takesabout a millisecond. Wave functions t hat, duringevery millisecond, develop ten billion times andthen collapse again can only act as backgroundnoise in the nervous system.

Tegmark's paper led to a lot of comm ents anddebate. A short comment inScience made it appearas if Tegmark's artic le was the near-definitive refu-tation of the quan tum brain.'' But Hameroff and hiscolleagues claim tha t th e mic rotubule is well insu-lated in a living cell and that the interactions thatTegmark evaluates simply don't occur.^

The collection and processing of informationby living creatures has, for many decades, been partof the field of biology. The theory of Penrose andHameroff looks like a giant leap straight from quan-tum physics to the solution of the central enigma ofneurobiologyconsciousness. However, it was by

abandon ing the vague n


5/5

Copyright of Skeptic is the property of Skeptics Society and its content may not be copied or emailed to

multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users

may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

bier, quantum consciousness (skeptic 2010)

Documents