We are appalled
by your great wisdom. Being a Professor devoted to spreading education and
eradicating ignorance, we beg you to be gracious enough to consider us as a
student and kindly explain and educate us the basic foundations of “Orch OR”
and the meaning of space-time and its fabric. Since you have published the
paper with a renowned Physicist, your insight into the subject must be great
and it will be a novel experience of learning physics from a Professor of
Psychology, who is an authority of physics also. Let us discuss “Orch OR” in
the first half, after which we will discuss physics.
In your paper “Quantum computation in brain
microtubules? The Penrose-Hameroff ‘Orch OR’ model of Consciousness”, you begin
with “Potential features of quantum computation could explain enigmatic aspects
of consciousness. The Penrose-Hameroff model (orchestrated objective reduction:
‘Orch OR’) suggests that quantum superposition and a form of quantum
computation occur in microtubules - cylindrical protein lattices of the cell
cytoskeleton within the brain’s neurons. Microtubules couple to and regulate
neural-level synaptic functions, and they may be ideal quantum computers
because of dynamical lattice structure, quantum-level subunit states and
intermittent isolation from environmental interactions”.
Only the scaling up or down of digitized
particles or the result of measurement of their interactions can be computed.
If “Potential features of quantum computation could explain enigmatic aspects
of consciousness”, then do you mean consciousness can be digitized? There is no
proof in support of this view. Though our sense organs are digitized, they are
individually meaningless - without mixing, there cannot be awareness of any
object. Let us take the example of a rose. Eyes see only a reflected light that
gives the perception of color. When both eyes see the colour from different
angles, our sense of touch gives the contracting features to indicate various
depths, which are amalgamated as form. The nose gives the fragrance. Our sense
of taste (which can be meaningful only after it is transformed to a fluid
state) gives the sense of glow (with liquid content and not dryness). Finally,
our recalling of a past experience where we heard people calling a similar
object as rose gives us the perception of rose. Without the mix of all
digitized inputs, there will be no perception or awareness, which is called
consciousness. Thus, who or what represents the “mixer” in your model?
When you talk about the “enigmatic aspects
of consciousness”, how can you measure or compute it? Enigma is mysterious or
difficult to understand. If it is mysterious, it is not known. If it is
difficult to understand, you cannot be sure that what you assume is correct.
Then how can you compute something unknown or something about which you are not
sure? Further, what are the other aspects of consciousness? Giving a partial
explanation about something is not enough. You must list out all aspects to
avoid ambiguity and misinterpretation.
We have explained in later paragraphs that
except the state measured at a time ‘t’, all other unknown states are combined
and are called the superposition of states. Then how can you compute the
unknown states or “quantum superposition and a form of quantum computation
(that) occur in microtubules”? Penrose’s Quantum gravity formulations are not widely
accepted in the scientific community and till date there is no definite proof
of gravity being quantized – gravitons have never been discovered. Thus, the
whole thing including his theory, is reduced to speculation. Can speculation be
science?
When you say: “Microtubules couple to and
regulate neural-level synaptic functions, and they may be ideal quantum
computers because of dynamical lattice structure, quantum-level subunit states
and intermittent isolation from environmental interactions”, you appear to
relate microtubules to consciousness. But in a dead body, the microtubules do
not function. Then how could you deduce theories of consciousness from
something, which by itself is not conscious?
All operations involve energy. The moment
the vital energy leaves the body; all organs including the microtubules,
DNA/RNA, neurons, genes, etc. become non-functional. Thus, the vital energy
would appear to be responsible for consciousness. But energy is mechanical.
Thus, it cannot explain consciousness. How do you explain this paradox?
When you talk about “orchestrated objective
reduction”, you clarify, it as “implementing multiple computations
simultaneously, in parallel, according to quantum linear superposition”. You
admit that “The main obstacle to realization of quantum computation is the
problem of interfacing to the system (input, output) while also protecting the
quantum state from environmental decoherence. If this problem can be overcome,
then present day classical computers may evolve into quantum computers”. We
have described the “workings of the human mind” in terms of contemporary
information technology as follows:
Stuart Hameroff says: “feelings drive
evolution, not survival of genes”. In one of the papers we edited, we had
written as follows: There is a proverb: “Prayojanamanuddishya Na Mandopi
Pravartate”. The meaning is that no one does anything without necessity.
What is this necessity? A necessity (प्रयोजन) is that which propels everyone and everything to initiate an
effort (येनप्रयुक्तः प्रवर्त्तते). Before someone does anything, he/she
feels a deficiency somewhere which needs to be addressed. If he/she has the
knowledge (ज्ञानम्) of any mechanism to
address the deficiency, he/she feels the need (इच्छा) for that thing to be done (यमर्थमभीप्सन् जिहासन् वा कर्म्मारभते). Then only he/she puts that knowledge to
execute the needed action (कृति).
This principle applies to everyone for every action using every technology (सर्वे प्राणिनः सर्वाणि कर्म्माणि सर्वाश्चविद्या व्याप्ताः). Thus, mind and intelligence, which propel
towards action due to freewill, are important in conscious efforts.
We have already explained in detail that
mind is not a computer, though there are similarities and consciousness is
different from mind and intelligence. Even for Jeeva, it is the Observer for
the “feelings like happiness, pains, desire, attachment, repulsion, etc”. Thus,
it has “knowledge” of all these, which propels it into action by releasing or
applying necessary energy (mechanism of observation), which is confined in the
body (observed), which is the base for such experiences. The sensory agencies
including the objects or processes through which they function, such as DNA,
microtubules, etc., are the instrumentalities used in the mechanism of
observation. Modern scientists focus only on these instrumentalities ignoring
the Observer. The Jeeva is characterized by its response to desire, repulsion,
effort due to freewill (not mechanical motion, which is a sign of inertness),
feelings of happiness, pain, and knowledge or awareness (इच्छा-द्वेष-प्रयत्न-सुख-दुःख-ज्ञानान्यात्मनो
लिङ्गम्). None of the
agencies discussed by Hameroff and others including DNA, microtubules, etc.,
can explain these. They do not have a clear idea about “mind”, “feeings”, etc.,
about which we discussed in in detail in our papers for the earlier
conferences.
We frequently compare mind with RAM, brain
with HDD. Mind supports sensory instruments and reports to intelligence, like
RAM supports applications (task). RAM has volatile memory and hangs from time
to time if overloaded. Similarly mind goes to sleep if overworked. Intelligence
is like CPU, which does the processing of all sensory inputs. Just like CPU
cannot execute a program that is “not on the disc” and has not been loaded in
the RAM, intelligence cannot act without mind. If memory speed is less than
FSB, it takes too long to fetch an instruction or an operand. Similarly, mind
shows dullness or brightness based on its species specific speed. Just like the
CPU and RAM differ in processing capabilities (arithmetic dexterity) and
storage capacity respectively even after the computer breaks down; different
species show different levels of behaviour. These are input, memory, processing
and output related and not perception related (as “I know” or happiness, pain,
desire etc).
Vital energy that starts breathing, which
continues perpetually is like the power supply (electricity provided by a
battery). The first breath is like the BIOS Chip, which boosts the computer and
searches and loads the OS to RAM from ROM that cannot be modified, which is
equivalent to memory content of the new born (such as to cry to draw attention
of others when it is uncomfortable or to suckle the nipple when it is brought
near its mouth when hungry and many such first time behaviour, which has not
been experienced by it since birth). First breathing is like first boosting of
the computer. Like Consciousness, OS is same for all computers, but BIOS varies
from computer to computer. Similarly, consciousness in all living beings
exhibits itself through DNA coding, which is species specific. It is a program
semi permanently stored into one of the main chips. The OS creates virtual
memory in HDD by creating a page-file when the system runs out of RAM.
Similarly, we recollect more recollections correlated with greater connectivity
among different regions of brain. Sometimes “over-clocking” boosts up OS speed.
Similarly, suddenly we have bright ideas.
More RAM directly increases the amount of
applications run simultaneously, faster loading time, faster boot up, and
overall greater boost through all aspects. Greater brain size and surface area
(creases) does the same for living beings. The better the CPU, more information
can be processed at a time. Similarly, better intelligence can take faster decisions.
The better the HDD, the faster the information can be passed on to the
processor. The bigger the HDD, more information can be stored. The bigger the
brain surface area, the faster and better operations could be performed. The
CPU processes information in computers using logic gates. Intelligence does the
same thing through sensory agencies. CPU directs RAM to do what is important.
RAM can provide inputs, but cannot directly take decisions. Intelligence
takes decisions based on inputs provided by mind only. When switched off, RAM
becomes empty. CMOS battery keeps the CMOS alive the chip even when the
computer is turned off. Similarly, intelligence remains active even in deep
sleep. This way, macroscopic phenomena are connected to the brain’s known neural
activity. But when you write in your paper “macroscopic quantum phenomena”, we
are at a loss. If it is macroscopic, it cannot be quantum. If both are the
same, both these terms are superfluous.
There are differences between brain’s
software and computer software. A computer can simultaneously test for more
than one condition or execute multiple commands. But the brain cannot do so.
They follow sequence of logical efforts first and knowledge of such efforts
later. Computers run on standard/special programs, which are soft, i.e.,
flexible to be instantly reprogrammed. These are put to the hardware to become
operational. Similarly, the body matter including the bacteria, neurons, DNA,
microtubules, etc, are hardwares that operationalize the life’s software. But
who writes the program? Only conscious beings can initiate action based on
freewill. It is different from motion, which is a mechanical reaction. Thus, we
have to admit a super consciousness outside all mechanical devices including
robots. Since human mind is like computer, it cannot write its own program.
Self-reproduction is a mechanical process.
There is no self-reproduction in consciousness (the object or mechanism of
perception may change, but one perception cannot be differentiated from another),
though linked information retrieval may give other notions, such as
replication. We request you to kindly educate us on this issue.
You propose: “microtubules within the
brain’s neurons are viewed as self-organizing quantum computers”. Self-organization
is a process where some form of overall order or coordination arises out of the
local interactions between smaller component parts of an initially disordered
system. The process of self-organization can be spontaneous, and it
is not necessarily controlled by any auxiliary agent outside of the system.
This would make the neuron’s function without any auxiliary agent outside of
the system. Then how do you explain the dead neurons and how do you
differentiate between the two types of neurons? Without clarifying the basis of
your theory, the deductions or details become meaningless tryst with fiction.
As we understand from our little knowledge
of physics, space and time arise out of our perception of sequence and
interval. When the sequence of objects and their interval are involved, we call
the interval space. When events are involved, we call their interval time.
Measurement is a process of comparison between similar. For measuring space and
time, we take easily intelligible and fairly repetitive distances and events to
devise a unit. For example, a day or a year is a fairly repetitive and easily
intelligible event. We take these as time units and sub-divide it to get the
second or multiply it with the speed of time to get light year. We design
clocks to synchronize the ticks with the subdivision called second. Similarly,
we design scales of unit interval between objects and take it as the unit for
measurement of distance. The interval between any two objects is compared –
scaled up or down – with this unit. The result depicting the interval is called
space through alternative symbolism since space itself has no identifying
characteristics and cannot be measured in the absence of objects. The
sequential arrangements of objects are depicted through coordinates. For
example, the actual distance between two objects or points may not always
reflect their distance (geodesics). For this purposes various coordinate
systems such as Cartesian and polar coordinates are used.
Dimension is not the same as direction. It
describes the interface between the internal structural space and external
relational space with other objects that remains invariant under mutual
transformation. The result of measurement is always related to a time t,
and is frozen for use at later times t1, t2, etc,
when the object has evolved further. All other unknown states are
combined together and are called superposition of states. Hence there is an
uncertainty inherent in it. Since the interface is not constant in fluids,
there can be no fixed result of measurement of their dimension – hence it
cannot remain invariant under mutual transformation. For this reason, volume is
considered for fluids, which remain constant under mutual transformation.
However, since time does not fulfil any of these criteria, it cannot have
dimension or volume.
Einstein defined space as what we measure by
measuring rods and time as what we measure by the ticks of a clock. Since he
did not define “what we measure”, we are confused about his meaning. We also
have difficulty in understanding measurement in a moving from using a scale in
the fixed frame, but we are not seeking clarification about it now. We beg you
to kindly teach us proper physics by clarifying the position, such as “what we
measure” for space and time and “how time is considered a fourth dimension”.
Also we are confused about the extra dimensions, which remain undetected even
after a century, but which every scientist swears by. To us, it appears like
the “flower of the sky” – something only heard of but never seen. Since all
scientists including Penrose use it, we must be ignorant about it. Hence we beg
you to kindly educate us.
The wave-function was popularized by Schrödinger. He
noted that it may happen in radioactive decay that “the emerging particle is
described ... as a spherical wave ... that impinges continuously on a
surrounding luminescent screen over its full expanse. The screen however does
not show a more or less constant uniform surface glow, but rather lights up
at one instant at one spot ....”. He observed
that one can easily arrange, for example by including a cat in the system,
“quite ridiculous cases” with the ψ-function of the entire
system having in it the living and the dead cat mixed or smeared out in equal
parts. Thus it is because of the “measurement problem” of macroscopic
superposition that Schrödinger found it difficult to regard the wave function
as “representing reality”. But then what does reality represent? With evident
disapproval, Schrödinger describes how the reigning doctrine rescues itself by
having recourse to epistemology. We are told that no distinction is to be made
between the state of a natural object and what we know about it, or perhaps
better, what we can know about it. Actually – it is said - there is
intrinsically only awareness, observation, measurement. But what is the proof
for the validity of this statement? We request you to kindly educate on this.
One of the assumptions of quantum mechanics
is that any state of a physical system and its time evolution is represented by
the wave-function, obtained by the solution of time-dependent Schrödinger
equation. Secondly, it is assumed that any physical state is represented by a
vector in Hilbert space being spanned on one set of Hamiltonian eigenfunctions
and all states are bound together with the help of superposition principle.
However, if applied to a physical system, these two assumptions exhibit mutual
contradiction. It is said that any superposition of two solutions of
Schrödinger equation is also a solution of the same equation. However, this
statement can have physical meaning only if the two solutions correspond to the
same initial conditions.
By superposing solutions belonging to
different initial conditions, we obtain solutions corresponding to fully
different initial conditions, which imply that significantly different physical
states have been combined in a manner that is not allowed. The linear
differential equations that hold for general mathematical superposition
principles have nothing to do with physical reality, as actual physical states
and their evolution is uniquely defined by corresponding initial conditions.
These initial conditions characterize individual solutions of Schrödinger
equation. They correspond to different properties of a physical system, some of
which are conserved during the entire evolution.
The physical superposition principle has
been deduced from the linearity of Schrödinger differential equation without
any justification. This arbitrary assumption has been introduced into physics
without any proof. The solutions belonging to diametrically different initial
conditions have been arbitrarily superposed. Such statements like: “quantum
mechanics including superposition rules have been experimentally verified” is
absolutely wrong. All tests hitherto have concerned only consequences following
from the Schrödinger equation. We request you to kindly educate on this.
Similarly, the Schrödinger equation in
so-called one dimension (it is a second order equation as it contains a term x2,
which is in two dimensions and mathematically implies area) is converted to
three dimensional by addition of two similar factors for y and z axis. Three
dimensions mathematically imply volume. Addition of three (two dimensional)
areas does not generate (three dimensional) volume and x2+y2+z2 ≠ (x.y.z). We request you to kindly educate on this.
You have described feelings by giving
examples of “Epicurean delight, ‘dopaminergic reward’, Freud’s ‘pleasure
principle’, spiritual bliss, and altruism (it feels better to
give than to receive)”. These are details like the different dishes served in a
banquet (Epicurean delight). But the question is what is the basic principle?
Why do we need the different dishes or the banquet itself? While discussing
“feelings”, these become important. We need food for survival, which is a
physical and biological necessity as a mechanical function. From our experience
with different dishes, we have developed certain tastes for certain
combinations of edible ingredients that not only fulfil our need for food, but
also are harmonious to our maintenance of the body (good health). While there
are various alternatives leading to the same goal, we select only a few,
because, we “feel” comfortable (memory of past experience with it was harmonious
to our taste – not Dopaminergic reward, which is a manipulated reaction). Some
neurotransmitters modulate the activity of specific brain nucleus (such as
nuclei accumbens, putamen, ventral tegmental area - VTA, among others) and
synchronizes the activity of these nuclei to establish the neurobiological
mechanism to set the hedonic element of learning. Experimental evidence
highlights the activity of different brain nuclei modulating the mechanisms
whereby dopamine biases memory towards events that are of motivational
significance. Such biased memory cannot be used to formulate a theory.
Thus, “feeling” is related to memory of
objects encountered in the past. If that was harmonious with our composition
(did not release free radicals), we feel comfortable. Otherwise we “feel”
uncomfortable or pain. This is in conformity with Freud’s principle that the
mind seeks pleasure and avoids pain - the child learns that the environment
does not always permit immediate gratification. His “maturity” is based on
memory. Yet, in his book Beyond the Pleasure Principle, published in 1921,
Freud considered the possibility of “the operation of tendencies beyond the
pleasure principle, that is, of tendencies more primitive than it and
independent of it”. Through an examination of the role of ‘repetition
compulsion’ in potentially over-riding the pleasure principle, Freud
ultimately developed his opposition between Eros, the life instinct,
and Thanatos, the death drive. Thus, the basic feelings are reduced
only to ‘pleasure’ and ‘pain’ (bhoga), with food, selter, sex, etc being
subsidiary instrumentalities (upabhoga – secondary bhoga).
Thus, it is not universal (avidyaa). If we can have knowledge (vidyaa)
about the nature of objects we use, we could chose only what is good for us leaving
out the rest. Then, there cannot be any “feeling”, but only knowledge of the
Nature. It has nothing to do with survival - genetic or otherwise.
This is why “scientific approaches to brain function can’t account for feelings
or consciousness (‘qualia’, the ‘hard problem’)”.
Regarding Dopaminergic reward, one must be
careful. In a recent study: “On the Nature and Nurture of Intelligence and
Specific Cognitive Abilities: The More Heritable, the More Culture Dependent”
published in Psychological Science, (DOI:
10.1177/0956797613493292), researchers investigated how heritability
coefficients vary across specific cognitive abilities both theoretically and
empirically. They assessed the “Cultural load” of various cognitive
abilities by taking the average percentage of test items that were adjusted
when the test was adapted for use in 13 different countries. The finding
suggests that:
1. In
adult samples, culture-loaded subtests tend to demonstrate greater heritability
coefficients than do culture-reduced subtests; and
2. In
samples of both adults and children, a subtest’s proportion of variance shared
with general intelligence is a function of its cultural load.
The above finding implies that, the extent
to which a test of cognitive ability correlates with Intelligence Quotient (IQ)
is the extent to which it reflects societal demands and not cognitive demands.
“IQ” here refers to the general intelligence factor: technically defined as the
first factor derived from a factor analysis of a diverse battery of cognitive
tests, representing a diverse sample of the general population, explaining the
largest source of variance in the dataset. Further, in adults, higher
heritability of the cognitive test reflects more test-dependence on culture. The
effects were medium-to-large and statistically significant. Highly culturally
loaded tests such as Vocabulary, Spelling, and Information had relatively
high heritability coefficients and were also highly related to IQ. This
counter-intuitive finding is inconsistent with the traditional investment
theory and aggravated the nature-nurture debate of intelligence.
The question: “why did the most
culturally-loaded tests have the highest heritability coefficients” – returns
many puzzles. The society is a homogeneous learning environment – school
systems are all the same; everyone in a class has the same educational
experiences; yet the cognitive ability varies. If the traditional investment
theory is correct and crystallized intelligence (such as vocabulary, general knowledge)
is more cognitively demanding than solving the most complex abstract reasoning
tests, then tests such as vocabulary would have to depend more on IQ than fluid
intelligence. But why tests such as vocabulary would have a higher cognitive
demand than tests that are less culturally-loaded but more cognitively complex
(such as tests of abstract reasoning)? Also, this theory doesn't provide an
explanation for why the heritability of IQ increases linearly from childhood to
young adulthood. One way out is to abandon some long held assumptions in the
West. These findings are best understood in terms of genotype-environment
covariance, in which cognitive abilities and knowledge
dynamically feed off each other. Those with a proclivity to engage in cognitive
complexity will tend to seek out intellectually demanding environments. As they
develop higher levels of cognitive ability, they will also tend to achieve
relatively higher levels of knowledge. More knowledge will make it more likely
that they will eventually end up in more cognitively demanding environments,
which will facilitate the development of an even wider range of knowledge and
skills.
Societal demands influence the development
and interaction of multiple cognitive abilities and knowledge, thus causing
positive correlations among each other, and giving rise to the general
intelligence factor. These findings do not mean that differences in
intelligence are entirely determined by culture. The structure of cognitive
abilities is strongly influenced by genes also. What these findings
do suggest is that there is a much greater role of culture,
education, and experience in the development of intelligence than mainstream
Western theories of intelligence have assumed. Behavioural genetics researchers
- who parse out genetic and environmental sources of variation – have often
operated on the assumption that genotype and environment are independent and do
not co-vary. These findings suggest they very much do co-vary.
Attempts were made to link perception and intelligence
- for instance, do intelligent people see more detail in a scene? Now
scientists at the University of Rochester and at Vanderbilt University have
demonstrated that high IQ may be best predicted by combining what we perceive
and what we cannot. In two studies in the journal Current Biology,
researchers discovered that performance on this test was more correlated with
IQ than any other sensory-intelligence link ever explored - but the high-IQ
participants were not simply scoring better overall. Individuals with high IQ
indeed detected movement accurately within the smallest frame - a finding that
suggests that the ability to rapidly process information contributes to
intelligence. More intriguing was the fact that subjects who had higher IQ, struggled
more than other subjects to detect motion in the largest frame. The authors
suggest that the findings underscore how intelligence requires that we think
fast but focus selectively, ignoring distractions. Earlier, analysts of the US
Army data claiming black-white difference invented a “Spearman’s hypothesis” to
show that “the magnitude of the black-white differences on tests of
cognitive ability are directly proportional to the test’s correlation with
IQ”. In “Psychology, Public Policy, and Law” 2005, Vol. 11, DOI:
10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.235, the authors made the case that this proves that
black-white differences must be genetic in origin. But the recent findings
discussed above suggest just the opposite: The bigger the difference in
cognitive ability between blacks and whites, the more the difference is
determined by cultural influences. More study on the
role of genotype-environment covariance in the development of cognitive ability
needs to be done.
There is a saying in our country: “when
speaking about a subject on which you are not an expert, you should be brief
and not use it out of context”. Unfortunately, now-a-days, people are drawing
limited quotes from other fields and used high-sounding words to show of how
much they know about everything. Your example of Penrose is one such instance.
This is called the age of science. But currently physics is at
cross-roads. There are a large number of different approaches to
the foundations of Quantum Mechanics (QM). Each approach is a modification of
the theory that introduces some new aspect with new equations which need to be
interpreted. Thus there are many interpretations of QM. Every theory
has its own model of reality. There is no unanimity regarding what constitutes
reality. Quantum Mechanics is not compatible with Relativity.
General Relativity does not work beyond solar system. The “Information Paradox”
shows that either Quantum theory is wrong or Relativity is wrong. Both cannot
be correct simultaneously. Most
of the ‘established theories’ have been questioned as the latest observations
find mind boggling anomalies in theoretical prediction and actual measurement.
In hierarchy problem of dark energy, the theory and observation differ by a
mind boggling factors ranging from 1057 to 10120.
Yet, this theory got Nobel Prize. Similarly fantasies like extra-dimensions
have not been proved even after more than a century. In short, there is a
severe crisis in physics, though no one is publicly admitting it, as they fear
that international funding will dry up. We will discuss the fallacies of
Penrose separately.
There is a saying in Vedanta "Yat
pinde tat Brahmaande", which implies, the microcosm and the macrocosm
replicate each other. Thus, it is no wonder that there will be many such
instances. You admit that QM and GR do not commute. Many scientists including
Penrose have tried to harmonize both. Penrose's pet theme about quantum gravity
does not stand the test of proof because there is no proof that gravity can be
quantized - graviton, its predicted carrier particle, has not been discovered.
Thus, it is fiction. For the last three years, the Information paradox has
proved that either QM is correct or GR is correct. Both cannot simultaneously
correct. We have shown that GR cannot be correct. You can ask Dr. Lee Smolin
about our paper. Regarding the gravity wave, there are many questions. It has
not been independently verified by other teams. Hence it could be a misleading
inference or chance.
We may point out that more than 3 years ego
CERN/LHC announced the discovery about the Higg's boson - the so-called
god-damned particle refereed to the God particle. We was among the first to
question it during September 2012. Even today, you can verify from the web page
of CERN that the discovered particle IS NOT HIGGS BOSON BUT HIGG LIKE.
Similarly, even though it was claimed that it provides mass to everything, it
is totally wrong. It provides mass through weak interaction, which is about
0.5% of the total mass. Of course not being a physicist, you will not understand
these.
In case you do not agree with our views, we
challenge you to PROVE not brand us wrong.
Even Einstein did not claim that GR is about
consciousness. The world over accepts GR as the theory of gravitation which
replaced Newtonian theory. Thus, do you mean gravitation is consciousness? Ha.
Ha. Good joke.
What is gravitising consciousness? Coining
new words like Orch OR to impress people? Sorry, we are not impressed.
We are not bothered by the claims on GW. We
have a different interpretation for it which fake scientists like you will
never understand.
Instead of claiming that Orch OR will
explain consciousness, please specifically reply to our queries, which
challenges the basics of your fiction touted as a theory. Otherwise kindly
change your position and please do not waste the time of others. Members of
this group are too intelligent to see through your gimmick.
For “Penrose’s suggestion that gravity
affects collapse of the wave-function which gives rise to consciousness” to be
acceptable, he or you must give proof and not issue diktat. Till date QM
believed that observation by an intelligent agent collapses wave function.
Suddenly you issue your command like “God said let there be light and there was
light”. Do you claim yourself to be God? Otherwise prove “how gravity affects
collapse of the wave-function” and how it "gives rise to
consciousness"? For people like you and Penrose, the prestigious
scientific magazine Nature had to publish a paper warning scientists to defend
the integrity of physics. You can read the full paper at Nature 516, 321–323
(18 December 2014) doi:10.1038/516321a.
Ironically, the muon lifetime experiment,
correct or not, tests an invalid prediction of Einstein’s relativity. It
follows from Einstein’s 1905 two postulates that time dilation is symmetrical -
either observer sees the other’s clock running slow. Yet Einstein found it
profitable to inform the world that, although time dilation is symmetrical, it
is still asymmetrical - the stationary clock runs faster than the travelling
one:http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ ON
THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, A. Einstein, 1905:
(a) “The
observer moves together with the given measuring-rod and the rod to be
measured, and measures the length of the rod directly by superposing the
measuring-rod, in just the same way as if all three were at rest”, or
(b) “By means of
stationary clocks set up in the stationary system and synchronizing with a
clock in the moving frame, the observer ascertains at what points of the
stationary system the two ends of the rod to be measured are located at a
definite time. The distance between these two points, measured by the
measuring-rod already employed, which in this case is at rest, is the length of
the rod”
The method described at
(b) is misleading. We can do this only by setting up a measuring device
to record the emissions from both ends of the rod at the designated time,
(which is the same as taking a photograph of the moving rod) and then measure
the distance between the two points on the recording device in units of
velocity of light or any other unit. But the picture will not give a correct
reading due to two reasons:
· If the length
of the rod is small or velocity is small, then length contraction will not be
perceptible according to the formula given by Einstein.
· If the length
of the rod is big or velocity is comparable to that of light, then light from
different points of the rod will take different times to reach the recording
device and the picture we get will be distorted due to different Doppler shift.
Thus, there is only one way of measuring the length of the rod as in (a).
Einstein goes on to say: “From this there
ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there
are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous;
and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then
on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved
from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to
magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the
journey from A to B." This is tantamount to saying that, although
elephants are unable to fly, they can still do so by just flapping their ears.
Yet the breathtaking impliciations of Einstein's invalid conclusion (time
travel into the future etc) enchanted the world: http://plus.maths.org/issue37/features/Einstein/index.html John
Barrow FRS, professor of mathematical sciences at the University of Cambridge:
"Einstein restored faith in the unintelligibility of science. Everyone
knew that Einstein had done something important in 1905 (and again in 1915) but
almost nobody could tell you exactly what it was. When Einstein was interviewed
for a Dutch newspaper in 1921, he attributed his mass appeal to the mystery of
his work for the ordinary person: “Does it make a silly impression on me, here
and yonder, about my theories of which they cannot understand a word? I think
it is funny and also interesting to observe. I am sure that it is the mystery
of non-understanding that appeals to them...it impresses them, it has the
colour and the appeal of the mysterious”. Relativity was a fashionable notion.
It promised to sweep away old absolutist notions and refurbish science with
modern ideas. In art and literature too, revolutionary changes were doing away
with old conventions and standards. All things were being made new. Einstein’s
relativity suited the mood. Nobody got very excited about Einstein’s Brownian
motion or his photoelectric effect but relativity promised to turn the world
inside out”.
