Dear Label_Name,

Greetings! I hope you are well.

I am writing on behalf of an international publishing house, Science and Education Publishing, USA (http://www.sciepub.com).

Science and Education Publishing (SciEP) is a multidisciplinary open access publisher of Journals covering the fields of Science, Technology and Medicine. All SciEP publications are subject to high-quality peer review, editorial and production processes and are freely available online.

Welcome to the April, 2013 edition of SciEP newsletter, providing monthly summaries of articles on science & education related topics of interest to scientist and professionals. The mission of our journals is to provide an open access forum for publishing new findings on issues pertinent to scientific and academic field. We also invite you to submit original research papers, review articles, short reports, or case studies are considered for publication in our Multidisciplinary Journals.

American Journal of Public Health Research
DOI: 10.12691/ajphr-1-1-3

The Implementation of a Tele-Homecare System with Service Oriented Architecture and HL7 Message Transmission Standard
Ching-Sung Wang

American Journal of Medical and Biological Research
DOI: 10.12691/ajmbr-1-1-2

The Influence of Ethanol on Pyruvate Kinases Activity in Vivo, in Vitro, in Silico
Lelevich Sergey Vladimirovich, Khrustalev Vladislav Victorovich, Barkovsky Eugene Victorovich, Shedogubova Tatyana Aleksandrovna

American Journal of Medical Sciences and Medicine
DOI: 10.12691/ajmsm-1-1-1

Clinical and Histological Features in Wegener Granulomatosis
Li Cavoli Gioacchino, Passantino Rita, Bono Luisa, Tortorici Calogera, Ferrantelli Angelo, Giammarresi Carlo, Rotolo Ugo

American Journal of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology
DOI: 10.12691/ajidm-1-1-2

The Curse of Lymphatic Filariasis: Would the Continual Use of Diethylcarbamazine Eliminate this Scourge in Papua New Guinea?
Anne Lanham, Lillian Mwanri

We have released issues of some journals on February 2013.
American Journal of Public Health Research
American Journal of Medical Sciences and Medicine
American Journal of Medical and Biological Research
American Journal of Pharmacological Sciences
American Journal of Clinical Medicine Research
American Journal of Nursing Research
American Journal of Cancer Prevention
American Journal of Medicine Studies
American Journal of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology
American Journal of Cardiovascular Disease Research
American Journal of Biomedical Research
American Journal of Mechanical Engineering
American Journal of Microbiological Research
Journal of Preventive Medicine
American Journal of Food and Nutrition
American Journal of Hypertension Research
American Journal of Sports Science and Medicine
Journal of Cancer Research and Treatment
American Journal of Zoological Research
Journal of Biomedical Engineering and Technology
American Journal of Microbiological Research
Biomedical Science and Engineering

We are pleased to announce that submissions are now being accepted for peer review for all the journals across all our subject areas in SciEP.

Please submit your manuscript via our online submission system:
http://www.sciepub.com/author/signin

To unsubscribe from our mailing list, please click on the following link: unsubscribe

I am looking forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

David Rain
Email:join@sciepub.com
Science and Education Publishing (http://www.sciepub.com)

New Hypothesis on Consciousness-Brain as Quantum Processor-Synchronization of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity

Siva Prasad Kodukula

Visakhapatnam, India

Abstract: Latest theories on consciousness have been discussed and the drawbacks also analyzed. Some of the basics of physics have been elaborated by which a new hypothesis of consciousness has been put forth. Some of the aspects of relativity, and quantum theory have been discussed thoroughly to bring consciousness within the scope of physics. In the process, a new model of consciousness has been introduced as a hypothesis. The final outcome resembles a quantum computer and processing of information in quantum bits. Thus the processing speed has been estimated for a conscious brain. It is estimated as 144 quantum bits per second. This model explains that a conscious brain works like a projector. It explains that every living thing will act according to a ‘fundamental force of nature’ called ‘bio-force’. Its quantum particle is ‘jeeton’. The interaction between ‘jeeton’ and ‘graviton’ gives rise to consciousness. The model emphasizes that ‘mind’ is a consequence of ‘jeeton’ and the ‘matter’ is a consequence of ‘graviton’. Their entanglement gives rise to consciousness. Thus it explains the relation between ‘mind’, ‘matter’ and ‘consciousness’ in terms of physics. This will have an influence on philosophy to solve problems like ‘Hard problem’. It will be helpful to develop humanoid robots and may be helpful in study of neurosciences and medical technologies. In contrast to contemporary thought, the process of ‘observation’ has been described as two aspects of a phenomena one satisfy quantum mechanics and another satisfies relativity. Thus a novel approach to synchronization of quantum theory with relativity has been introduced. Fundamentally it is disagreeing the process of objective reduction of the Orch-OR theory in so many aspects.

Keywords: quantum mechanics, relativity, film theory of the universe, decoherence, double relativity effect, entanglement, Orch-OR, consciousness, jeeton, mind, matter

Received May 22, 2019; Revised July 03, 2019; Accepted July 17, 2019

Citation: Siva Prasad Kodukula, New Hypothesis on Consciousness-Brain as Quantum Processor-Synchronization of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity. International Journal of Physics, 7 (2). 31-43. January 2019. doi:10.12691/ijp-7-2-1

1. Introduction

Consciousness is a fascinating topic for philosophers, neuroscientists and physicists. It is defined in lot of ways according to their choice of research subject. Some of the parts of Wikipedia’s description about ‘consciousness’ have been considered in this introduction to step by step improvement in the school of thought of ‘physics of consciousness’. In terms of general usage, Oxford dictionary defined the consciousness as-“The state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings”.

If we go much deeper in to the philosophical views of the term consciousness, philosophy of mind plays a role in defining consciousness. Philosophy of mind is a branch of philosophy that studies the ontology, nature, and relationship of the mind to the body. The mind-body problem is a paradigm issue in philosophy of mind, although other issues are addressed, such as the ‘hard problem of consciousness’, and the nature of particular mental states, the philosophy of mind has given rise to many stances regarding consciousness. Most writers on the philosophy of consciousness have been concerned with defending a particular point of view, and have organized their material accordingly. For surveys, the most common approach is to follow a historical path by associating stances with the philosophers who are most strongly associated with them, for example Descartes, Locke, Kant, etc. An alternative is to organize philosophical stances according to basic issues.

Philosophers and non-philosophers differ in their intuitions about what consciousness is? How to define a “conscious process”? For the purposes of definition, the importance of retaining an initial, clear distinction between information processing and the conscious experiences that may or may not accompany it becomes evident as soon as one reflects on the very different ways that the term “conscious process” has been used in the literature [1].

As per Ned block [2], Consciousness is a mongrel concept: there are a number of very different "consciousnesses." Phenomenal consciousness is experience; the phenomenally conscious aspect of a state is what it is like to be in that state. The fallacy is: an obvious function of the machinery of access-consciousness is illicitly transferred to phenomenal consciousness [2].

David Chalmers [3] has argued that A-consciousness can in principle be understood in mechanistic terms, but that understanding P-consciousness is much more challenging: he calls this the ‘hard problem of consciousness’. The really hard problem of consciousness is the problem of experience. When we think and perceive, there is a whir of information-processing, but there is also a subjective aspect that there is something it is like to be a conscious organism. This subjective aspect is experience. It is widely agreed that experience arises from a physical basis, but we have no good explanation of why and how it so arises. Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all? It seems objectively unreasonable that it should, and yet it does. If any problem qualifies as the problem of consciousness, it is this one. In this central sense of "consciousness", an organism is conscious if there is something it is like to be that organism, and a mental state is conscious if there is something it is like to be in that state. Sometimes terms such as "phenomenal consciousness" and "qualia" are also used here, but I find it more natural to speak of "conscious experience" or simply "experience" [3].

With the above descriptions about ‘consciousness’ we can come to a conclusion about information processing and experience rather than we can call it as perception. Information processing is ‘objective’. It may be explainable by ‘classical physics’ but can be explained by ‘quantum physics’. There are several attempts to explain ‘quantum consciousness phenomena’.

Let us discuss in brief-‘Implicate order’ and ‘explicate order’ are ontological concepts for quantum theory coined by theoretical physicist David Bohm[4] during the early 1980s. Bohm's proposed implicate order applies both to matter and consciousness. He suggested that it could explain the relationship between them. He saw mind and matter as projections into our explicate order from the underlying implicate order. Bohm claimed that when we look at matter, we see nothing that helps us to understand consciousness. Bohm discussed the experience of listening to music. He believed the feeling of movement and changes that make up our experience of music derive from holding the immediate past and the present in the brain together. The musical notes from the past are transformations rather than memories. The notes that were implicated in the immediate past become explicate in the present. Bohm viewed this as consciousness emerging from the implicate order. Bohm never proposed a specific means by which his proposal could be falsified, nor a neural mechanism through which his "implicate order" could emerge in a way relevant to consciousness [4]. Bohm later collaborated on Karl Pribram’s holonomic brain theory as a model of quantum consciousness. Elaborating the implicate aspect of person hood, Bhom accords consciousness a prominent role in the holo movement. He believes that consciousness can and should be comprehended in terms of the implicate order citing Karl Pribrams theory showing that memory is not recorded in particular cell or structure of the brain, but that information is enfolded over the whole [4]. Pribram maintains that brain works like a hologram, storing nearly infinite amounts of information paradoxically everywhere in the brain and yet not in any particular one place. According to Pribram, brain performs transformations at rapid speeds back and forth between the material reality and holographic, implicate order of energy operating outside the boundaries of time space causality matter and mind [5].

We have started with general definition of consciousness and entered in to philosophical definitions of consciousness. Gradually we are removing the complicated views and substantiating the concept of consciousness either in philosophers view or in scientists view. Finally we have specified it as ‘hard problem’ and ‘easy problem’ for further substantiation. By the way we are still going ahead with the notions whether it is subjective or objective. There we have entered in to applied quantum mechanics and to quantum mind concepts. Later it demands for biological and neurological concepts and structure of brain and its constituents for further developments. Orch-OR theory is one of the theories put forth by collaboration of a renowned Oxford professor Sir. Roger Penrose and an American medical surgeon Dr. Stuart Hammoroff. The Orch-OR proposal suggests conscious experience is intrinsically connected to the fine-scale structure of space–time geometry, and that consciousness could be deeply related to the operation of the laws of the universe [6]. ‘Orchestrated objective reduction’(‘Orch-OR’) is a theory which proposes that consciousness consists of a sequence of discrete events, each being a moment of ‘objective reduction’(OR) of a quantum state (according to the DP scheme),where it is taken that these quantum states exist as parts of a quantum computations carried on primarily in neuronal microtubules. Such OR events would have to be ‘orchestrated’ in an appropriate way (Orch-OR), for genuine consciousness to arise. OR itself is taken to be ubiquitous in physical actions, representing the ‘bridge’ between the quantum and classical worlds, where quantum super positions between pairs of states get spontaneously resolved into classical alternatives in a time scale τ, calculated from the amount of mass displacement between the two states. In our own brains, the OR process that evoke consciousness, would be actions that connect brain biology (quantum computations in microtubules) with the fine scale structure of space–time geometry, the most basic level of the universe, where tiny quantum space–time displacements are taken to be responsible for OR. The Orch-OR proposal therefore stretches across a considerable range of areas of science, touching upon the foundations of general relativity and quantum mechanics, in unconventional ways, in addition to the more obviously relevant areas such as neuroscience, cognitive science, molecular biology, and philosophy. It is not surprising, therefore, that Orch OR has far stood the test of time better than most others chemise, and it is particularly distinguished from other proposals by them any scientifically tested, and potentially testable, ingredients that it depends upon [6]. Consciousness has often been emerged to be a sequence of discrete moments. The “perceptual moment” theory of Stroud [7], described consciousness as a series of discrete events, like sequential frames of a movie (modern film and video present 24 to 72 frames per second, 24 to 72 Hertz). (The idea of film is not appropriate and the film in the present paper has been redefined after a broad view of quantum mechanics and relativity at their merging point)Let us elaborate the consciousness in terms of quantum physics by Orch-OR proposal since it is the main theme of our discussion about a new proposal.

In 1989 Penrose published The Emperor’s New Mind [8]. Non-computability and objective reduction (OR) has been proposed by the DP proposal which gives an objective physical threshold, providing a plausible lifetime for quantum-super posed states. Other gravitational OR proposals have been put forward, from time to time as solutions to the measurement problem, suggesting modifications of standard quantum mechanics, but all these differ from DP in important respects. Among these, only the DP proposal (in its role within Orch-OR )has been suggested as having anything to do with the consciousness issue [6]. In the DP scheme for OR, the superposition reduces to one of the alternatives in a time scale τ that can be estimated (for a superposition of two states each of which is assumed to be taken to be stationary on its own)according to the formula An important point to make about τ, however, is that it represents merely a kind of average time. The criterion to be satisfied and interaction with the environment should be avoided long enough during this process [6].

Analysis on some of the concepts involved in Orch-OR proposal such as threshold time, quantum decoherence, entanglement, system and the environment with which system interacts etc and the process connecting all these phenomena raised so many alternative solutions for connecting concepts and alternative proposals for integration of them. Thus a new hypothesis explaining the model for ‘consciousness and information processing’ has been proposed.

2. Discussion

Ÿ Orch-OR emphasizes on the fact that ‘one conscious moment occurs’ when an objective reduction occurs within threshold time τ. And ‘EG’ is gravitational self energy in classical level and superposition of two consecutive states of the object in quantum terms. Such arrangement will exist somewhere in the brain which causes conscious moment. There is no proper supportive argument to Orch-OR that how much is required so that we can calculate the threshold time. But as per their intuitive assumptions it is proposed that somewhere in the brain it exists, they tried to find out the τ by experiments on tublins of microtubules and thus they estimated the mass deposition during this threshold time. It is the energy or mass required to fire a neuron. Thus ‘τ’ is dependent on experimental result. In the Orch OR ‘beat frequency’ proposal, we envisage that ‘τ’ could be far briefer, e.g.10⁻⁸ sec, a time interval already shown by Bandyopadhyay’s group to sustain apparent quantum coherence in microtubules. In either case, or mixture of both, Orch OR provides a possible way to account for frequent moments of conscious awareness and choices governing conscious behavior. Then how can it be accepted as a threshold time for consciousness moment? It only can say (based on quantum mechanics) that there will be a threshold time. But it cannot not say specifically ‘how much is that?’ It may assume that there are several stages in consciousness for example perception and the mass deposition and threshold time is different for such cases. But what is exact threshold time required to keep the observer conscious? This cannot be explained by orch-OR

Ÿ At the same time it emphasizes on a point that during this threshold time there should not be information loss or decoherence should not be there. For that purpose they say that there will be quantum entanglement within it. It cannot explain how quantum entanglement exists? What way it can explain internal systems?

Ÿ Threshold time will vary with the mass of object. If threshold time generates consciousness, the information processing must be without loss. Thus it must be without decoherence. Then if ‘τ’ is process time during this period and the material say ‘neuron’ is the transmitter and can be quantified in terms of it, it must be same for all conscious observers. And it should not vary with the object’. Then why don’t we suggest an alternative model for processing so that the thresh hold time, decoherence time and a constant system for transformation which is invariant of the observable.

Ÿ Why there should be coherence in this process of consciousness described by Orch-OR? And what is the duration of this process without decoherence? What is the special thing about this system of brain? Whether it is there in the brain molecules are in the physical system itself?

Ÿ Why the Orch-OR considered the Gravitational self energy only in its ‘thresh hold time’ or ‘reduction time’ calculation. If gravitation also like other three fundamental forces, why don’t there be other thresh hold time calculations? How conscious observers treat them for integration? Is quantum entanglement plays a role in that integration considering fundamental forces of nature?

Ÿ Why there will be information loss (decoherence) in observation? (As proposed by Orch-OR). If conscious observer and object are different then there will be information loss during transformation? Is it true? Why can’t there be a system which is fully without decoherence? And object is not a separate system from conscious observer?

Ÿ Orch-OR will follow free will concept of philosophy by its basics? What are the basics of quantum mechanics and relativity which are against to orch-OR concept formation that denies ‘free will’ philosophy?

In order to overcome above queries, a new model of consciousness has been suggested which is a modified version of Orch-OR theory.

2.1. Regarding ‘threshold time’

It is accepted that DP concept of space time forms objective reduction and wave function collapse at a stage where super position of two quantum states occur and can be calculated by the formula

After introduction of Siva’s grand unification equation [9], the smallest diameter for the space time which causes the force of gravity due to the curvature of its space time has been calculated and its contraction is origin of mass. This mass and space time diameter are interrelated. Thus mass can be calculated for this quantum of gravity space time. This mass will have a life time as mentioned in DP theorem and the time τ can be calculated by law of gravitational binding energy. Thus threshold time can be firmly said that it is the threshold time that involves in OR.

Why we have considered the gravitational self energy only?

Tuszynski etal. Questioned [6] how extremely weak gravitational energy in the DP version of OR could influence tubulin protein states. does not actually play a role in physical processes as an energy, in competition with other energies that are driving the physical (chemical, electronic) processes of relevance is, instead, an energy uncertainty—and it is this uncertainty that allows quantum state reduction to take place without violation of energy conservation. The fact that is far smaller than the other energies involved in the relevant physical processes is a necessary feature of the consistency of the OR scheme, particularly with regard to energy conservation. In practice, all that is needed for is to tell us how to calculate the lifetime τ of the superposition. would enter in to issues of energy balance only if gravitational interactions between the parts of the system were important in the processes involved. (The Earth’s gravitational field plays no role in this either, because it cancels out in the calculation of ) No other forces of nature directly contribute to which is just as well, because if they did, there would be a gross discrepancy with observational physics [6].

It can be answered in straight forward manner “all the fundamental forces are formed by their space times and space time diameter for each fundamental force can be calculated by Siva’s grand unification equation [10]. Thus gravity is also having a space time diameter for its quantum particle ‘graviton’. This is the time that involves in the human consciousness (time is same for all the conscious observers at rest) and its space time curvature causes gravitational force.

2.2. Regarding ‘decoherence’

Quantum decoherence theory is a quantitative model of how this transition from quantum to classical mechanics occurs, which involves systems performing local measurements on themselves. More precisely, we divide our universe into two pieces: 1. A simple system component, which is treated quantum mechanically, and a complex environmental component, which is treated statistically. 2. Since the environment is treated statistically, it obeys the rules of classical (statistical) mechanics, and we call it a mixture [11,12]. When the environment is coupled to the system, any quantum mechanical information that the system transfers to the environment is effectively lost, hence the system becomes a mixture over time. In the macroscopic world, ordinary forces are huge compared to the subtle effects of quantum mechanics, and thus large systems are very difficult to isolate from their environments. Hence, the time it takes large objects to turn to mixtures, called the decoherence time, is very short [12].

At the core of the foundation of quantum mechanics are three rules. The first two tell us how to represent a physical object and describe its physical properties mathematically, and the third tells us how the object and properties are connected. These three rules permit us to state a physical problem mathematically, work the problem mathematically, and then interpret the mathematical result physically [11,12]. The first physical object of concern is the state, which completely describes the physical aspects of some system [11,12]. Now that we have introduced the state, we can discuss the physical concepts used to describe states. These concepts include momentum, energy, and position, and are collectively known as dynamical variables [11,12]. Now that we have laid out the basic properties of the Wigner distribution, we need to understand how to use it to describe a physical system. The master equation described in the paper [12] dictates the time evolution of a system and an environment with which the system interacts. The last term of the master equation turns out to cause decoherence of the system [11,12]. Above description about decoherence tells us how to define a quantum state and how it can be interpreted by mathematics. The master equation interpreted by mathematics shows how the system will undergo ‘decoherence’ by the change of terms and oscillators used in the system. It is very important to understand the description of a system, its time evolution, and interaction with the environment.

DP concept of space time forms objective reduction and wave function collapse at a stage where super position of two quantum states occur and can be calculated by a thresh hold time ‘’. Orch-OR emphasizes on the fact that ‘one conscious moment occurs’ in that stage and such arrangement will exist somewhere in the brain which causes conscious moment. During this duration of time, there should not be information loss means, decoherence should not be there. Consciousness requires decoherence. So a system in which observable and environment is not separable (comes under one isolated system) will be without decoherence. Is such system possible by any physics laws? If so, how to interpret them in to a system without decoherence? What is the system inside such a coherent system which is useful for interactions? In this paper it is suggested that there will be a non-decoherent system described by absolute velocities and ‘film theory of the universe’.Concept of ‘absolute velocities’ and ‘film theory’ can be interpreted by special and General theories of relativity [13].’Double Relativity Effect’ is the system inside this ‘non-decoherent system’ which is applied in transformation within the system or even ‘system to system’. In this paper it describes a transformation between ‘jeeton’ a fundamental force particle [10] and ‘graviton’ a quantum particle of fundamental force known as gravitation.

2.3. Regarding ‘quantum spin’ and ‘information’

Physically information embedded in system must be understood before its transformation. Already it is motioned in the paper [10] that information is the energy of a quantum of space time of the concerned fundamental force when its signal velocity reaches maximum in the space time made up of that fundamental force. The curvature of space time interprets the magnitude of that fundamental force.

It is related to reduced plank constant thus related to ‘quantum spin’. Thus ‘spin’ is a form of energy equivalent to angular momentum of the quantum particle rotating around its own axis whose space time diameter can be calculated by grand unification equation [10]. In this paper it is explained that information is like potential energy (by virtue of its existence in the universal film) and cannot be observed until unless it converts in to kinetic energy. The process is evolution of time. So the process of flowing information through entanglement, decoherence and transformation and completes process of observation. This is a circular process and originates time. ‘Information’ is ‘potential time’. Potential time is the time by virtue of its existence in the universal film. It will not flow. The time which we are considering in space time is its flow with the change of universal films. This potential time converts in to kinetic time and considered as a flow of time. It is similar phenomena to potential energy and kinetic energy and their conversions in classical physics. ‘Thresh hold time’ is this flow of time during the process of ‘occurrence of consciousness’.

2.4. Regarding ‘Quantum Entanglement’

Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon that occurs when pairs or groups of particles are generated, interact, or share spatial proximity in ways such that the quantum state of each particle cannot be described independently of the state of the other, even when the particles are separated by a large distance. Measurements of physical properties such as position, momentum, spin and polarization, performed on entangled particles are found to be correlated.

For this purpose we have to define the terms ‘system’, outside the system (environment), state, types of states and superposition. This is somehow related to decoherence. As described in the above section about decoherence, at the core of the foundation of quantum mechanics are three rules. The first two tell us how to represent a physical object and describe its physical properties mathematically, and the third tells us how the object and properties are connected. These three rules permit us to state a physical problem mathematically, work the problem mathematically, and then interpret the mathematical result physically .The first physical object of concern is the state, which completely describes the physical aspects of some system [11,12]

Physically, entanglement is a transformation between two parts of a system separated apart. The two parts can be considered as a system as a whole. Now let us see the physical meaning of transformation both from the point of ‘relativity’ and ‘quantum mechanics’.

i) From the point of view of quantum mechanics:

This "transformation" idea refers to the changes a quantum state undergoes in the course of time, whereby its vector "moves" between "positions" or "orientations" in its Hilbert Space [14].

ii) From the point of view of special relativity:

‘Special Theory of Relativity’ is based on Inertial frames of Reference. Inertial frame of reference is a frame in which laws of inertia is valid. Transforming all the physical laws by which object is described in one inertial frame, to another inertial frame of reference by means of a signal transformation is called transformation in terms of relativity. This signal must be constant in all Inertial Frames of Reference (IFRs) and it is the maximum speed in that system of transformation. The same signal is viewed with different velocity with different space times. Transformations in a system are completely based on its signal velocity.

3. Conceptual Applications

Now let us see how the above concepts can be applied to ‘Film Theory of the universe’ ‘Double Relativity Effect’ and ‘consciousness’.

In view to satisfy all the above concepts of quantum mechanics, relativity and Orch-OR drawbacks, let us propose a new model for consciousness with the application of

1. ‘Film theory of the universe’ interpreted by synchronizing quantum mechanics by quantum states and relativity by ‘concept of absolute velocities’ within the scope of relativity.

2. ‘Double Relativity Effect’ applied to interpret quantum entanglement between ‘graviton’ and ‘jeeton’ (quantum particles of fundamental forces)

3. ‘Super theory of Relativity’ to interpret consciousness in terms of above two concepts.

4. Quantum decoherence to describe a system without loss of coherence or information for conscious observer and process of observation.

5. Some logical explanations which urge us to think the consciousness process of the brain to consider in a reverse way and the observation as per present physics is a part of the process only. Complete process should be called as observation within the scope of physics. Duration of this cycle of completion is origin of time for conscious observer.

6. Interpretation of ‘information’ and its process in terms of ‘time’

4. New Model of Consciousness

Figure 1 shows two instances of an object one is at rest indicated as i.e. velocity of the object is zero. And one of its corner situated at origin ‘O’ in X Y coordinate system. It is assumed that from this corner, signal has been triggered for observation. The observer is conscious observer. In the second instance the object is with velocity relative to the object at the first instance positioned in the coordinate system X' and Y' and the signal is triggered from origin O' in X' Y' coordinate system.

Figure 1. Showing the existence of two different Inertial Frames of Reference (IFRs) of object in Universal Films. One is at rest (Vo=0) and another is with velocity ‘Vo’, V1, V2, V3,…, V11 are absolute velocities associated to the concerned films

As per the ‘film theory of the universe’ [13], universe is made up of films and each film will be associated with an absolute velocity. Means, the clock if it runs in a film it should show same time in all the points in that film.

In any space time there exist an absolute velocity from a point from which the observation is made at‘d’ distance and the velocity is related by equation Where ‘K’ is siva’s constant [9,10] and varies with the space time associated to the fundamental force whose magnitude is interpreted by its curvature. For the space time considered in General Relativity the force is gravitation.

Thus from origin ‘O’ there exist several films with V1, V2. ...up to V11 with different absolute velocities. So the points in the object which are at various distances will have different velocities if we view it at films level. Thus the object will be spread over different universal films.

Similarly in the second instance also the object is spread over different films but is completely different from the object at first instance.

It is explained in paper [13] that a film is an ‘Inertial Frame of Reference’ Hence forth will be called as IFR and follows special theory of relativity .But time will be static. It will not flow. The passage of time starts if a film changes from one to another. So it cannot be observed and it is an ideal condition. In quantum mechanical terms it is a pure quantum state but cannot be considered as observable since time is static thus it is an ideal one. The mixed state is also a pure quantum state in which flow of time considered. Now it is an observable and can be accepted as a quantum state or a pure quantum state mathematically.

We have the object in fist instance in one IFR and the same is in another IFR in second instance. For easiness let us consider the relative velocity between these two IFRs is zero then the object is at rest involved in several films.

If we consider a conscious observer is observing the object existed in an IFR (defined by relativity) and the signal for transformation is triggered from a point ‘O’, The complete information of the object or IFR has to be collected to that point and to be transferred from that point. The point ‘O’ is located in film with absolute velocity V₁. So the information of all the particles in that object has to be transferred to the film with V₁ velocity(a single film) means, all the information of other particles existed in various films will be superimposed. In other words the superposition of states in to one state .As per relativity it is a single IFR and signal can be transferred to the observer (A signal can be released from an IFR only).

Figure 2. Showing the two different films associated with the object as two different IFRs so that the object is at rest with the corresponding Universal film

Figure 2a showing the process of considering the object in the IFR of single Universal film associated with velocity ‘V₁’ Figure 2b showing the process of considering the object in the IFR of single Universal film associated with velocity ‘V₈’. In both films the object is at rest with respect to the film in which the point of signal transmission originated. And as per relativity they are with a relative velocity VO.

Figure 3 shows the super position of two separate films in to one and illustrates that the observation of object is affected by superposition of many number of such films.

Thus in the process of observation the object must be divided in to several universal films to facilitate to send a signal which can be triggered from an IFR and can be transferred to an IFR only. Here signal will have complete information of the object or IFR. Object at rest in universal film means both the objects and concerned film are in same IFR. Now, how this information will be transferred to conscious observer? Since it is a conscious observer, the transformation follows ‘super theory of relativity’ [15] by means of ‘double Relativity Effect’ [13].

This IFR from which the signal triggered is a coherent quantum state. There will not be any loss in information from environment to the object under observation.

Next it will be carried to brain of conscious observer by means of ‘double relativity effect’ since ‘super relativity’ is applied to conscious observer, it is an interaction between graviton and jeeton [10]. Even though the transformation follows relativistic rules, due to the different space times, there will not be loss of information and decoherence will be maintained due to ‘Double relativity effect’. The two relativities applied in double relativity will be considered as two parts of a single system when interpreted in quantum mechanics. Thus ‘decoherence’ will not be there in transferring it to the brain.

Figure 3.

Next, a part of the brain will carry the information without losing part of it in to environment. A chain of neurons or series of neurons connected in such a way that the information will not be lost during the complete process of observation.

Then there arises a question-

How many neurons will be in that series to maintain to avoid decoherence? (This calculation can be elaborated in separate section after concluding the integration of complete process).

Again this will be transferred to ‘jeeton’ and transfers the information to ‘jeeton’. This transformation is nothing but ‘quantum entanglement’.

Thus Figure 3 explains-

1. Dividing the object in to several universal films and carrying the information to conscious observer by means of entanglement and without de coherence.

2. Creating the object at the specified point from which the signal or information transferred to the conscious observer by super positioning all the universal films.

Now, the integration of these entire phenomenons in the process will form the object in the four dimensional space time interpreted by General Relativity. That will be observed by all the senses of the conscious observer and will be coordinated at information coordinating centre in the brain. (The coordination centre is outside of brain? Or inside of this neuron chain? It will be explained in a separate section after getting a complete idea of processing. It is the relation that explains mind matter interactions)

The integration process can be explained by a process diagram as in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Integration of all phenomena involved in consciousness-Direction of Process and Observation

Figure 5. The Reality-Actual direction of process Reverse direction of process mentioned in Figure 4

A simple logic turns this process to a reverse process.

As per Figure 4 the object is in universe outside conscious observer. So the future of the object can be known by number of films changed where as duration of film change is as per film theory of the universe [13].

Simultaneously the information processed to the brain also will be changed. If that is the case, what external force is takes the object to its future or what causes for this change of universal film. If information is there in the brain that will create the image of the object in space time in which it is existed. And as the information changes, the object will goes in to its future position. So information must be in neurons and its transfer will be without decoherence.

So the process must be reversible to the Figure 4 and the actual process must be as shown in Figure 5.

4.1. Brain as a Projector

Lot of philosophers supporting the idea that brain is like a projector and now in this paper that idea is emphasized by the concepts of physics. Here it is explained that the information passage is from brain and forms the real object on this four dimensional screen of space time.

In Figure 5, one specific point in the ‘chain of neurons’ must be the point of generating information. Point in the ‘chain of neurons’ means a point in a specified neuron and further it must be a point in DNA of neuron in which the information about the object is programmed. If we review the evolution of ‘neuron’, recent studies show that the neurons in the human brain will rewrite its DNA program automatically. So the point must contain information and will be coded as program of the DNA of one neuron in that chain and the information will be processed accordingly without decoherence.

But logically there must be a connection to the point of this DNA and the coordination centre which synchronizes with the observation by sensory organs of the conscious observer. This second part is outside of coherent system and decoherence or loss of information must be there. At the same time it cannot exist inside neuron. So there must be a way which connects this point of DNA to the coordination centre without decoherence. It is possible by quantum entanglement between the point in DNA and ‘Jeeton’ which is the actual source of information. Point in DNA is a material object. So it must be formed by gravity space time. Thus the information transfer follows ‘Double Relativity Effect’ and it must be between matter particle and ‘jeeton’. Thus the transfer of information initiates from jeeton which contains information to the point of DNA of the specified neuron and without decoherence it passes to form the object in the space time (for us gravity space time) and will be observed by brain. This is a circuit which completes the cycle connecting mind and matter. Jeeton is associated to mind.

4.2. Brain as a ‘quantum processor’

Figure 6 shows the relation between film of the universe and the process inside the conscious observer since conscious observer is also part of the ‘film of the universe’.

It explains that the total circuit for flow of information goes through all the conscious observers in that film and the conscious observer is a loop as shown in Figure 7 in that process. A, B, C and D are conscious observers surrounded by a loop connected to the ‘universal film’.

Loop length of conscious observers is totally controlled by a point and is connected to universal film. For example, loop concerned to conscious observer ‘A’ and its length is connected to all the cells it contains (in case of human beings, it is called as body and consciousness is connected to universal film at a point where the loop ‘A’ is connected to the universal film. In other sense the matter is trapped within the universal film and a loop will process its complete information to the universal film).

Loop of conscious observer and universal film are interconnected but the time taken for the processing must be same for the universal film and the process inside the loop. Means, if one film of the universe changes, the process inside the loop connected to film also must be completed within that duration.

We know the time taken for the film change is plank time i.e as per film theory of the universe [13]. So the process inside the loop must also the same.

As per film theory, duration of film change = Plank time=

So rate of film change

Figure 6. Relativity & Consciousness Process of information & observation for different IFRs

Figure 7.

As per the film concept if universal films changes in one second, each change of film processes states of information for each individual observer with in that film since one film can be represented by quantum state. Thus one film of the universe is a quantum state. So quantum states per second are the processing speed for a conscious brain.

As per quantum computation ‘n’ no. of quantum bits will form quantum states [17].

Therefore

Where ‘n’ is no. of quantum bits.

Mathematically,

Let us say it as

This is processing speed of brain for complete consciousness that merges two consecutive films of the universe

We are in gravity space time,

So for creation of matter, Gravitational binding energy where ‘d’ is space time diameter.

And threshold time

Calculated as

(For elaborated calculation please refer [10]).

Thus brain must contain information carrying matter particle or system without losing that information while processing. In other words the smallest processing system of brain must be decoherent and the information it contains within that thresh hold time is -

Since processing speed is If we call this micro system of conscious brain is ‘neuron,’ a conscious brain must process neurons in one second so as to maintain minimum processing speed to be in conscious state.

Thus processing of in one second is the only measure for conscious brain. Processing of will generate consciousness and cognitive qualities for human brain since

Thus for conscious brain must be processed in one second .Each neuron with

If we call this network of neurons as processor for conscious brain, the processor speed is

4.3. The Process Inside this ‘Processor of brain’ is Related to ‘quantum spin’?

In the paper [10], it is explained how the ‘quantum spin’ is related to information processing.

As per [10], we have equation

Here‘d’ varies for each fundamental force. So ‘K’ will be different for each fundamental force. If we take photon, ‘space time diameter’ will exist. But as per special theory of relativity its space must be zero since it is moving with velocity of light. So due to limitation to its velocity i.e. c, its ‘space time diameter’ will gradually be reduced and finally will be reduced to zero, as per space time equivalence principle, at this point it [10] will have time only. And can be converted to time as per the equation [10].

Where ‘ r’ is space time radius. And space time diameter is ‘d’.

The equation can be written as

Where’d’ is ‘space time diameter’.

Thus at velocity of light it will be totally time ‘t ‘only. It means, the flow of time inside photon will be there but the duration between two events will be zero (duration will not exist). In other words time cannot be divisible inside photon. It is a quantum of electromagnetic force. In all respects it will not be divisible.

Due to this change in ‘d’ ‘K’ value will be reduced since in c is constant.

Again ‘K’ is related to as per equation If ‘K’ reduces, will be increased to compensate it.‘ ’ is ‘quantum spin’ related aspect. Thus ‘quantum spin’ is related to Sivas constant ‘K’.

Physically, it means that a quantum particle moves with velocity of light, its space time diameter will be zero but the space time diameter to be existed for that quantum particle will be reduced to zero and the reduction will cause to change its ‘’ and the spin is the equivalent effect of its rotation on its own access as if it will have a space time diameter ‘d’.

If we refer the process once again (ref. Figure 6), the information which forms the object in this four dimensional ‘space time’ will not obey the rule of relativity i.e maximum velocity is limited to velocity of light. It follows quantum mechanics by entanglement. But the second part of observation i.e observing the object by the senses of conscious observer must obey that speed limit. As per Figure 7 these processes separated as ‘universal film’ and ‘loop’. The time for processing of ‘universal film’ is ‘plank time’. There will be lot of loops in an ‘universal film’. The process must be completed by all these loops with in this duration of film change.

As explained above, as the velocity approaches light velocity, the ‘space time’ diameter will be reduced and will be changed to time. Finally time only remains. At this stage there is no meaning for energy (inside that space time diameter) since there will not be space inside .It is only time. But it will have energy equivalent to its rotation and affects its ‘’ and can be quantified also. That means, it is not energy but it will have something to transfer. That is nothing but information. Thus information is related to ‘quantum spin’.

“It is an important conclusion that energy is different and the information is different. Information is transferable even without energy. Energy carries information. But if any system exists to prevent decoherence the information will be transferred without energy”.

Also we have concluded that ‘information is related to spin’ of elementary particle.

It is a unique hypothesis which is novel and profound than other concepts. Some extent it seems that it is similar to objective reduction of Orch-OR theory [6]. Orch-OR consider that the ‘decoherence’ time for a complete object is its threshold time and it will vary with the mass of object. As the mass of any object increases, the decoherence time increases. But in this theory the concept is considered in opposite way. In this, there will not be separation between object and environment (in terms of quantum state). So there will not be decoherence and the same will be transferred by quantum entanglement and without decoherence. After a profound analysis the process is considered in reverse. That is entanglement between two fundamental force particles one is graviton and the other is jeeton. Refer Table 1 for point wise comparison between this proposal and orch-OR.

The definition of information used in physics has been viewed from the basics. It is different from the ‘Holographic principle’ which say that the 3D information of space time is encoded on the surface of it including time. Whereas, in this proposal it is elaborated that information is not like energy. Energy must contain space time. It is related to time. There will not be any space. Specifically it emphasizes on the fact that the processing of information must be an interaction between fundamental forces by which the consciousness emerges. Without which even ‘hologram of universe’ related to string theory or the proposal that ‘objects are projection of information from brain of conscious observer’ has no meaning.

Some researchers postulated that ‘quantum spin’ is a ‘mind pixel’ [18]. Consciousness is “intrinsically connected to quantum spin” since the latter is the origin of quantum effects in both Bohm and Hestenes quantum formulism and a fundamental quantum process associated with the structure of space-time. That is, spin is the “mind-pixel.” The unity of mind is presumably achieved by entanglement of the mind-pixels.

Table 1. Films in terms of Relativity and quantum mechanics

As per their spin-mediated consciousness theory, since spin is the seat of consciousness and the linchpin between mind and the brain, that is, spin is the mind-pixel. These ideas are vague until unless the words and their relations are defined by the concepts of physics. Physics has to define ‘time’ and ‘its origin’, ‘information’ and ‘its processing’, their ‘inter relation’, ‘physical meaning & its effects’ on ‘quantum spin’, the relation between spin, time and information. These things only can describe the word ‘mind’ defined as per philosophy and cognitive sciences. Physics will be succeeded in making a perfect theory of ‘consciousness’ which can stand for appropriate experimental verifications.

4.4. Overall View on ‘relativity’, ‘quantum entanglement’ & ‘consciousness’

In Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3 the process has been described by relativity only. Finally the object under observation will be associated to a ‘universal film’ and that ‘universal film’ must be an IFR. In the diagram for processing information i.e Figure 5, it is shown that information about this ‘universal film’ has to be transferred with in thresh hold time i.e nothing but the time taken for decoherence.

But, as per special theory of relativity, transformations are possible with in this gravity space time only. In case of ‘process involved in consciousness’, the transformation is in between two separate systems with separate space times. One is ‘gravitational space time’ in which curvature is ‘gravity force’ and another is a space time whose curvature is ‘‘bio force’. Both considered as fundamental forces [10]. The interaction between these two is cause for emergence of consciousness.

Figure 8. Entaglement in terms of Double Relativity Effect

The interaction or transformation is not possible by present ‘relativity’. This transformation must follow ‘double relativity effect’. At the same time it should be transferred without decoherence. In ‘double relativity effect’ the transformation has been explained in two stages. One stage is for one system and another stage is for another system. But the ultimate result will be visualized in one system only. This ‘double relativity system’ is with two sub systems within that main system. So there will not be any decoherence or loss of information with the environment. Signal velocity is also follow where where is observed velocity and is absolute velocity

The same phenomenon is termed as ‘quantum entanglement’ in quantum mechanics.

This is very much useful in processing of information which is part of consciousness. Already it is mentioned in ‘super theory of relativity’ [15] that the consciousness is formed by two different and separate IFRS.

Now it is emphasized by quantum mechanics as an interaction between two fundamental particles. One is related to mind another is related to matter. Jeeton is a quantum particle of the fundamental force called ‘bio-force’ and the ‘graviton’ is a quantum particle of another fundamental force i.e. gravitational force. Consciousness will emerge due to the interaction between ‘jeeton’ and ‘graviton’. Figure 8 explains the interaction between these two as entanglement through ‘double relativity effect’.

Figure 8 shows that the signal velocity (whose velocity is constant for all inertial frames of reference in that system) is ‘c’ in gravity space time. Signal velocity in ‘bio-force’ space time is [10,15]. Those two are two different space times with two different systems. If we consider them as two subsystems of a main system, the signal velocity will be where as per ‘double relativity effect’ and they will be entangled.

5. Conclusions

1.A new model of consciousness has been proposed to interpret ‘consciousness’ in terms of physics. It is completely different from the existing models but similar to Orch-OR proposal.

2. As per Orch-OR the ‘thresh hold time’ can be calculated by the formula In that, it is mentioned that ‘τ’ will vary with the mass of the object under observation. But in this newly proposed model, there will not be separation between environment and object under observation. ‘τ’ will have a specific value and τ will not vary with the object. The value of ‘τ’ has been calculated as 5.13818773×10-8 sec. This ‘τ’ plays a crucial role in ‘consciousness’. ‘τ’ is the threshold time during which the information transfers from mind to matter and the objects will be appeared on this screen of space time in which the curvature represents ‘gravity’.

3. This model explains that a conscious brain works like a projector. It explains that every living thing will act according to a ‘fundamental force of nature’ called ‘bio-force’. Its quantum particle is ‘jeeton’. The interaction between ‘jeeton’ and ‘graviton’ (quantum of a fundamental force of nature) gives rise to consciousness. The model emphasizes that ‘mind’ is a consequence of ‘jeeton’ and the matter is a consequence of ‘graviton’. Their entanglement gives rise to consciousness. Thus it explains the relation between ‘mind’, ‘matter’ and ‘consciousness’ in terms of physics. Here it is explained that the information passage is from brain and forms the real object on this four dimensional screen of space time. Thus the transfer of information initiates from ‘jeeton’ which contains information to the point in DNA of the specified neuron and without decoherence it passes to form the object in the space time (for us gravity space time) and will be observed by brain. This is a circuit which completes the cycle connecting mind and matter. ‘Jeeton’ is associated to mind.

4. This model clearly defined the term ‘consciousness’ in terms of physics interpreted by ‘processing speed’. The processing speed of the brain to be conscious has been calculated as 143.73 qubits/sec. Thus conscious brain has been considered as a quantum processor. Thus processing of 1.95×10⁷ neurons in one second is the only measure for conscious brain. Processing of 1.95×10⁷ neurons/sec will generate consciousness and cognitive qualities for human brain. Thus for conscious brain 1.95×10⁷ neurons must be processed in one second. Each neuron contains 7.39×10⁻⁶ qubits of quantum information.

5. It says that quantum spin is a ‘potential bearer’ of ‘information’. Thus quantum spin plays a vital role in processing of quantum information in the process of consciousness.

6. It is an important conclusion that energy is different and the information is different. Information is transferable even without energy. Energy carries information. But if any system exists to prevent decoherence, the information will be transferred without energy. This may be help full in the application of ‘Holographic principle’

References

[1]   | Max Velmans. (2009). How to define consciousness-and how not to define consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 16, 139-156.
[2]   | Ned Block. (1998). On a confusion about a function of consciousness. In N. Block, O. Flanagan, G. Guzeldere. The Nature of Consciousness: Philosophical Debates. MIT Press. 375-415.
[3]   | David Chalmers. (1995). Facing up to the problem of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies. 2, 200-219.
[4]   | Bohm, David (2002). Wholeness and the Implicate. Hoboken: Routledge. 186.
[5]   | Wade, Jenny. (1996). Changes of Mind: A Holonomic Theory of the Evolution of Con sciousness. Albany: State Univ. of New York Press. 14-19.
[6]   | S. Hameroff, R. Penrose. (2014). Consciousness in the universe A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory. Physics of Life Reviews 11, 39-78, 41, 48, 49, 59.
[7]   | Stroud JM. (1956). The fine structure of psychological time. Information theory in psychology. Free Press; 1956. p.174-205.
[8]   | Penrose R. (1989). The emperor’s new mind: concerning computers, minds, and the laws of physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[9]   | Kodukula, S.P., (2018). Plank Scale with Siva’s Constant “K”-A New Road to Grand Unification. Journal of Modern Physics, 9, 1179-1194.
[10]   | Kodukula, S.P., (2019). Values of Siva’s constant ‘K’ for all fundamental forces-A review on Spin, threshold time and quantum entanglement . Journal of Modern Physics, 10, 466, 476.
[11]   | L. E. Ballentine. (1998). Quantum Mechanics: A Modern Development (World Scientific).
[12]   | John Gamble. (2008). Foundations of Quantum Decoherence, The College of Wooster. arXiv:0805.3178v1 [quant-ph] 20 May 2008.
[13]   | Kodukula, S.P.. (2017). Role of Observer & Consciousness on Special Theory of Re lativity and its Influence on Kinetic Energy, International Journal of physics, 5, 4, 99-109.
[14]   | Dirac, P. A. M. (1930). The Principles of Quantum Mechanics, Cambridge University Press.
[15]   | Kodukula S.P. (2014). Super Theory of Relativity-Explanation to ‘Rest Mass of Photon’, ‘Quantum Entanglement’ and ‘Consciousness’”, American Journal of Modern Physics, Vol. 3, No. 6. 232-239.
[16]   | R. Penrose, S. Hameroff. (2011). Consciousness in the Universe: Neuroscience, Quantum Space-time Geometry and Orch OR Theory, Journal of Cosmology, Vol. 14. http://journalofcosmology.com/Consciousness160.html.
[17]   | Carlton M. Caves and Christopher A. Fuchsy. (2005). Quantum information: How much information in a state vector. http://cds.cern.ch/record/294810/files/9601025.pdf.
[18]   | Huping Hu & Maoxin Wu. (2007). Spin-Mediated Consciousness: Theory, Experimental Studies, Further Development & Related Topics. https://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0208/0208068.pdf.