abskebabs

Henry Stapp has an alternative quantum consciousness theory, that is allegedly unnaffected by the decoherence caused by the temperatures in the brain, originally cited in Max Tegmark's critiqe of Penrose's theory. Have you heard of his theory, and if so what do you make of it? Is there a connection here between Karl Pribram's holographic model of the brain?

Jim Al Khalili makes a brief effort to explain it in his book, "Quantum a guide for the Perplexed." I own this book, and I'm feeling generous so I'll type what he has to say on the subject: "There is one final interpretation of quantum mechanics that we have not yet discussed. It deserves a mention for two reasons; the first is its that its originator is one of the most respected mathemtatical physicists of his generation, Roger Penrose. The second is that it may explain the one area of science more mysterious than quantum mechanics; the origin of consciousness. According to Penrose, superpositions of different quantum states do not collapse due to the act of measurement, the presence of a conscious observer, or even interaction witht eh enviroment. Instead he believes that the process takes place even for an isolated system via a physical process linked with the very nature of spacetime itself. According to Penrose the 'objective reduction', or collapse, of the wavefunction takes place due to the different spacetime geometries of each state in the superposition. (Thus if a particle is in superposition of being in two different locations, the curvature of spacetime will alter depending on where the mass of the particle is more likely to be.) Once the difference in geometries builds up to a critical level, as when the partcile becomes entangled to its enviroment, the uperposition becomes unstable and collapses into just ne of the possible states. Of course, neither Penrose nor anyone els knows the details of this mechanism since we do not yet have a complete theory of quantum gravity. This interpretation has been applied by Penrose and Sturat Hameroff to explain how consciousness might get switched on within the brain. I should explain first that they appeal to quantum mechanics as they believe that the way we 'think' is fundamentally unlike the way a computer carries out algorithmic processes. This noncomputabllity of conscious thought, they maintain, must require something beyond classical physics-namely quantum physics. And they believe they have found just the right biological vessel to protect the delicate quantum coherence within the brain from the external enviroment. The brain's neurons contain hollow cylindrical ploymers called microtubules. These are in turn made up of individual proteins known as tubulin, which can exist in a superposition of two slightly different shapes. Penrose and Hameroff maintain that microtubules have just the right properties for this superposition to be maintained, and spread to surrounding tubuins. A coherent superposition is thus maintained for a significant time, allowing for preconscious approaches to emerge. Objective reduction of the superposition takes place when Penrose's critical threshold is reached and consciousness is switched on. Of course this would be going on all the time in the brain. Maybe we do not need to build a quantum computer after all; we each carry one in our heads!" Phew! That took a while to type I hope the publishers don't sue me:embarass: ...

How about Sanskrit, Persian, Greek etc? There's no need to show such a bias to 1 ancient language! Actually, I'm just kidding, you'd need different keyboards for a lot of those languages, besides th facts that next to no-one speaks them(I suppose that wasn't really relevant to the inclusion of Latin either).

I've had a look, and was dissapointed that for a lot of jobs for physicists a PHD is required. For chemical engineering, it's pretty easy getting a job with an MEng. I still can't make up my mind on which course I should do, I guess I've got a few months to mull over this.

Holy ****! I thought they were full of crap up to their ears before, but they're a very dangerous cult. They just seem like scum of the Earth now. I cannot believe ppl have anything to do with them. The thought disgusts me. The things ppl do for money.....

I know that both physicists and chemical engineers have what employers call transferrable skills, which they like. This allows ppl with both degrees to be highly valued in other fields. I think ppl who work as chemical engineers generall get paid more than ppl with physics degrees who just remain as physicists. I would like to remain financially secure, one way or the other, as well as do a job I'm interested in. This is why I have thought of swithcing to do a course in Physics with business management, as this could possibly aid me if I wanted to do a job in business or if I simply wanted to invest in the markets. I guess both subjects interest me, just maybe physics interests me more now. Both would be a challenge I think too, which I would like. I would like to know more about the kinds of jobs physicists can get into.

I have to say Roger Penrose's work is very interesting, but I think his theory is in incomplete and speculative form at the moment. I think we may have to wait a few years before its validity can be truly tested. The fiercest critiques of Penrose's theory have said that quantum effects like entanglement and superposition cannot occur in the brain because of the decoherence that occurs at body temperatures. He and his proponents however have countered this by saying this, by saying classical derivations of temperatures and energies used cannot apply on the scale of vessels like microtubules. Personally I am unsure, I think Penrose's as well as other quantum biological theories need further development and we need to learn more generally with the passage of time, before these theories could be accepted. They of course also need to be able to make predictions according to them as well. I have much more to learn, and I'm unsure about how well developed the fields of neurology and similiar fields are, so my gut feeling would be to go for the middle option.

Hi everybody. I've applied to do a masters in engineering course in chemical engineering at University. I have been reconsidering the choice I made however, and nw I am not sure whether to stick with it or switch and do physics. I'll be honest, I generally get better grades in maths and chemistry than physics, but the subject generally interests me much more than chemistry does. Also, I know the kind of work covered at A level is of a quite different nature to that at University. Chemical engineering still does interest me, not so much the course as a career as a chemical engineer, which I think would be quite exciting and challenging. Therefore, I'm quite unsure about which course to pick. What would you advise me to do? Also which course would you say generally offers better career prospects. Just so you know I would be aiming to do a masters science in Physics, if I picked that.

I have seen similiar posts about sleep, but none specifically addressing the following questions: How badly does a lack of sleep damage or kill brain cells? Also how in the long term, if you are sleeping for an insufficient number of hours(like 4-6), how long would this take to affect the brain in a serious way? I've found it really hard getting enough sleep recently, so I'd guess I'm just having premature worries about this.

How about if you have 2 quantum particles that are entangled and coupled to the same wavefunction? When a property of one of them is measured, the wavefunction collapses, and the 2nd one instantly is endowed with the corresponding property. This property is nonlocal, and although there is no real "transmission" of information, the time it takes for the information to be known is not limited to the time it takes for light to travel the distance between the particles. In this sense, the interaction is instantaneous. Could this be used to transmit information instantaneously? Are they planning on using this in the development of quantum computing. P.S sorry woelen, I should have read your post, you've already mentioned this... but I'm not fully convinced that this couldn't work.

I doubt there's a much greater risk than in American football. Unless you go into a tackle like an idiot, not trying to get the person from below the waist height or below, then generally, your ok. Of course I'm no expert, I haven't played ruby in about 6-7 years(thank god too, I'm rubbish at it! ). Still I do remember that piece of advice from my PE teachers at school. I may be wrong, but in American football it seems to me that tackles tend to be at chest height. How can you expect to knock someone down effectively when you try to tackle them at this height? Anyway, getting back to the subject of the post, after watching Argentina today, I think I will eat up my words from a few days ago; they are the favourites to me now, not Brazil(unless they were just taking the piss in the first game).

Although Hamas do advocate the destruction of Israel, their winning the election isn't as simple as just scapegoating Israel for Palestine's problems(although they do that too). Hamas were also seen as a more honest and transparent party, unlike Fatah who were plagued by relatively recent corruption scandals, as Skye has already mentioned....oops:embarass:

I think ppl's expectations have gone a little ott about England. I think they can win it too, but ppl were grossly underestimating T and T with predictins of scores like 3-0 and 5-0. I thought the scoreline would be more like 1-0, so I was pleasantly surprised with 2-0. I think there needs to be a tactical change in midfield. We need to get Steven Gerrard out of the defensive midfielder position and allow someone like Michael Carrick to fill that role. This would allow Gerrard and Lampard to get forward where they're best. I also agree about Terry, I think he was England's best player yesterday.

I have a question, why was the state of Israel formed in the first place, and not a secular state instead comprising of both Arabs, Jews, Druze and other communities. Or am I misunderstanding the influence and power that zionist movements had at that time; especially when using the mass murder of the Holocaust for their own political goals. I was surprised actually, when I read on wikepedia it says;"Since the Holocaust however, Judaism has become overwhelmingly Zionist. Today all of Reform, Conservative and Modern Orthodoxy is staunchly Zionist; and even most Haredi Jews have changed from anti-Zionism (active opposition to Zionism) to non-Zionism (neutrality towards Zionism.) Secular non-Zionist Jewish movements are very rare today." It saddens me when ppl place value in such trivial ideals such as nationalism and any movement that separates ppl from one another:-( . It is the scourge of humanity. Ppl cling on to what divides and separates them, and then they believe that we have fabricated an identity for themselves:rolleyes: ! I remember a scene from the English patient related to this, and it still makes me smile: "Hana carries in a tray. There's OMELETTE on the plate. HANA There's a man downstairs. He brought us eggs. (shows him the omelette) He might stay. THE PATIENT Why? Can he lay eggs? HANA He's Canadian. THE PATIENT (brittle) Why are people always so happy when they collide with someone from the same place? What happened in Montreal when you passed a man in the street - did you invite him to live with you? HANA He needn't disturb you. THE PATIENT Me? He can't. I'm already disturbed." It seems the more I learn about history, the more despondent and dejected I sometimes feel about the future. Or maybe I'm just feeling like that now...

I should have added from the inside of the spherical or cylindircal plate plate

lol, now u beat me to my post:-p . I guess I spend too long pondering when I'm about to post.

Would an arbitrarily long cylindrical or spherical plate produce a similiar field?

I don't consider it nitpicking at all;) , and I'm sorry if I misinterpreted you. In fact I confess, I do not know any other cases where electric field strength remains constant, and so I enquire; Could you tell me some? In my A level physics course I have only covered the 2 charge plates example and the spheres/point charges examples. I am interested in learning more and it seems evident to me by now there is much more to learn:-)

damn swansont beat me to it!

Dude, the electric field strength only remains constant between two charged plates of arbitrarily long length. An example would be a capacitor with 2 plates at different electric potentials. The electric field strength is simply the gradient or rate of change of the electric potential with increasing displacement displacement from plate to plate. Otherwise, as Atheist correctly said. this is not the case and the electric field strength is inversely proportional to the displacement squared between two point charges(for simplicity's sake). The charged plate example is actually a simpler reiteration of this in a way, under different circumstances. I have not quoted any maths, but I suggest you look it up if you want to improve your understanding. A good website to start would be hyperphysics. Just search for it in google. Hope that helped:-)

I remember one of my teachers a while ago told us that it mathematically it was possible to have up to 26 dimensions(that was a few years ago, it might be more now). I think there was this fractal created using it as well. Can anyone verify or dispel this? Anyway this was a thread was posted in the brain teasers and puzzles section, not mathematicss even though discussion of dimensions is an interesting backdrop. Has anyone tried the puzzle yet?? I have and I confess I'm struggling, I'm just trying to get used to it when I try it. There are 24 different ways to twist the "cube" and that's just from the central face/cube.

You should see these adverts:-p http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVqFqvEgcXQ&search=world%20cup%20advert http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHqwj7jQQXo&search=world%20cup%20advert http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WChk7XwrZOY&search=world%20cup%20advert

This seems pretty interesting, I gave it a brief look but I think I will give it a more thorugh look later, when I have familiarised myself with the terminology that is used to explain the theory. To be frank, it seems beyond me at the moment, and I don't think I could credibly comment on it atm. Thanks for putting it on tho;)

Mathmematically, you can create and deal with an arbitrary number of extra dimensions(as I'm sure any maths expert will tell you). This puzzle is not attempting to describe reality, so time does not necessarily need to be modelled as a dimension(if at all). At the moment I'm just trying to familiarise myself with the problem, and the different twists that can be performed. It's likely I may give up along the way ikn trying to solve the 4d puzzle, but hopefully I wont. Btw hav u tried it yet ecoli?

If your itching for a challenge, I suggest you try your hand at these. I'm pretty rubbish with ordinary rubik's cubes anyway:-p , but I thought I'd give the 4d one a go. The maths inviolved is pretty interesting too. The web addresses from which you can access both of these are as follows; For 4d:http://www.superliminal.com/cube/cube.htm For 5d:http://www.gravitation3d.com/magiccube5d/ Now dont forget to have fun:D !