Question about QM and Neuroscience

[Unbowed_epicure]

TL;DR

Please help me find some mistakes

I have one request, I hope you could answer it….

I saw this article that makes heavy assumptions based on Quantum Electrodynamics, like something like formation of an energy domain or sorts, and it connects it with brain activity which is super weird, I did ask a neuroscientist and he said he couldn’t make any sense with the physics part of it because the author delves very very deep into parts of physics which I’ve never heard off such as Energy Quanta-Gradients and stuff like that, and to me it seems very pseudosciencey as it is published in a non peer review Journal, however if you don’t mind you could please point out some of this mistakes(if any) this author makes on the QED theory?Now I know you wouldn't sit and analyze a 30 page paper on the internet but could you please take a look? If not the whole paper then just read the Tension vs Energy Domain part (section 3)I would really really appreciate if you could atleast point out just one mistake, I’ll link the article down below:-

{crackpot link deleted by moderator}

 

[PeroK]

Summary:: Please help me find some mistakes

I have one request, I hope you could answer it….

I saw this article that makes heavy assumptions based on Quantum Electrodynamics, like something like formation of an energy domain or sorts, and it connects it with brain activity which is super weird, I did ask a neuroscientist and he said he couldn’t make any sense with the physics part of it because the author delves very very deep into parts of physics which I’ve never heard off such as Energy Quanta-Gradients and stuff like that, and to me it seems very pseudosciencey as it is published in a non peer review Journal, however if you don’t mind you could please point out some of this mistakes(if any) this author makes on the QED theory?Now I know you wouldn't sit and analyze a 30 page paper on the internet but could you please take a look? If not the whole paper then just read the Tension vs Energy Domain part (section 3)I would really really appreciate if you could atleast point out just one mistake, I’ll link the article down below:-

It is crackpot pseudoscience. The introduction (abstract) is pure nonsense.

 

[Unbowed_epicure]

It is crackpot pseudoscience. The introduction (abstract) is pure nonsense.

Hi! Thanks for responding, could you make any sense of Section 3?

 

[PeroK]

Hi! Thanks for responding, could you make any sense of Section 3?

It reminds me of some of the less intelligible chapters of Ulysses by James Joyce!

By contrast, take a look at this piece on quantum gravity. Try to identify the differences between this (a genuine paper on modern physics) and the nonsensical gibberish above.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26510077_A_Review_of_Leading_Quantum_Gravitational_Corrections_to_Newtonian_Gravity

I'll give you the first difference for free: the genuine article uses something called mathematics!

 

[Dale]

Summary:: Please help me find some mistakes

I would really really appreciate if you could atleast point out just one mistake

This paper is pseudoscientific nonsense. It is not suitable for discussion here. For example the terms “plane or domain of tension and the plane or domain of energy” are not from any actual scientific theory. It is merely scientific words thrown together in a way that sounds exciting but is scientifically meaningless since it is not part of an actual scientific theory.

We do not discuss such material here.