B Question about QM and Neuroscience

Unbowed_epicure
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
TL;DR 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:-

{crackpot link deleted by moderator}
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Unbowed_epicure said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes Unbowed_epicure
PeroK said:
It is crackpot pseudoscience. The introduction (abstract) is pure nonsense.
Hi! Thanks for responding, could you make any sense of Section 3?
 
Unbowed_epicure said:
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!
 
  • Like
Likes Unbowed_epicure
Unbowed_epicure said:
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.
 
  • Like
Likes Unbowed_epicure and PeroK
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...

Similar threads

Replies
115
Views
9K
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
134
Views
10K
Replies
24
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
69
Views
7K
Replies
5
Views
7K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Back
Top