A more technical thread on the Quantum Physics behind MMI

This is the beginning of a more technical thread for those interested in discussing the physics underlying how MMI could work. While we don’t yet have a complete or sufficient theory, we are moving in that direction. I will provide theories as they develop.

Two articles attached show the progress (over 4 years) toward a more realistic description of the underpinnings of Quantum Mind. Penrose’s original OrchOR relying on microtubules has been thoroughly discredited, though he still sticks to his original theory (no surprise). The more recent ideas of nuclear spin superpositions are much more plausible since nuclear spins interact very little with the “warm and wet” environment in the brain that makes other theories highly improbable. While this may not be the final answer, we will eventually get to one that does work.

The articles are a little lengthy and moderately technical, but I think they are worth the read for those interested. (Strange link first, then Quantum Entangled)

Does it mean that lithium ions can suppress or stimulate mmi?

It’s a good thought to consider.

It’s not clear how lithium produces the psychotropic effects it has. While the articles suggest a possible mechanism, I don’t believe we have enough information or understanding yet to reasonably speculate on an answer to the question. A significant testing program would be required to determine experimentally if ingesting lithium has an effect on MMI.

Such a testing program would be problematic to say the least since lithium is a prescription drug and cannot be used without medical supervision. It seems highly unlikely such a program of testing would be approved, at least in the US. The chances of seeing that type of research will be better when MMI becomes an important economic and social factor.

I think. that there aren’t any “neural quantum processor”. But I have hypothesis, that self learning system, which is trying to maximise it’s processing power, can find way how to start quantum calculation process in systems, which aren’t very suitable for that task.

Also, I have hypothesis, that sufficiently organised information can demonstrate quantum effects in macro world.However, that’s much less proofable idea.

I found this paper that discusses the possible physical aspects of how the mind might be influencing generators used for MMI, briefly covering photomultipliers but with a focus on Zener diode based QRNGs. The concept of how influence can even be exerted at large distances is thought to possibly be because of mind entanglement with electrons at a distance inside the RNG and their change in orbit fires off photons to trigger a change in the noise measured, influencing the probability of the 1s or 0s in the direction intended. The paper also goes into discussions at what point exactly inside the electronics the physical effect of the intention might be occurring.

So basically we’re firing off light at a distance just thinking about it. Cool idea. Better than superman’s laser eyes I have to admit but he does have a bigger effect size.

Their analysis is an interesting thought, but they don’t really suggest a known quantum mechanical mechanism of how mind creates and directs photons. In the earlier work using a photomultiplier, it would seem more likely the effect was caused by directly influencing the motion of electrons in the photomultiplier tube, and the operation of the shutter was incidental. The reason for this opinion is it takes less energy to alter the voltages in the photomultiplier (altering the dark current) than to create a UV photon. Nature usually finds a way to maximize entropy, i.e., minimize energy flow. It’s a fundamental law of thermodynamics.

In the case of MMI, if there are two or more ways of altering a measurement to produce an intended result, the one that takes the least amount of energy is the most likely to occur. Moreover, the less energy is required, the more likely will be the intended result. This is very important for designing more responsive MMI generators and systems.

Do you think it is our minds (as in our brains) that cause the mmi effect? Or can the whole body act as an intention transmitter

I think the answer to your question is, while in most circumstances the brain/mind is inseparable from the rest of the body, it is only the intention operating in or through the brain that produces an MMI effect.

This is my reasoning:
It is clear that intention and mental effort is required to produce MMI effects. One may expect an MMI measurement to be responsive as long as the brain/mind is awake, even if the body were paralyzed or anesthetized. But, if the brain/mind is unconscious or asleep, there can be no intention and no MMI response.

Someday we may understand MMI so completely we can build an MMI machine that interacts with other machines or human minds. I think we are a long way from that day.

Excerpt from an unpublished note I wrote in April, 1997 with some earlier calculations and observations concerning the relationship between energy and effect size in MMI generators. My present level of modeling enables more extensive and precise calculations of effect size versus energy, including the ability to model the performance of virtually every type of entropy source and generator type. © July, 2021 Scott A. Wilber

[Page 1]

With single photon, signal is just 1 or 0 with equal probability. Since both paths are indistinguishable, this is a quantum superposition. Therefore, the collapse of the wave function at the “1” or “0” detector results in no difference in entropy versus the “0” or “1” detector.

The goal is to obtain a detectable signal from a system while maintaining entropy, E = 1.0 – ε, ε is vanishingly small. If the designation of the “1” or “0” detector is randomly chosen before [Page 2] detection, then the entropy may be maintained at exactly 1.0, ε → 0.

Test correlation coefficient of the two detector systems.

Check correlation of the two pairs of detectors: analog or binary.

[Page 3] Three primary factors obscure the detection of intention on a physical device:

  1. The largest is the result of a very small effect superimposed on a large number of “natural” events. This is illustrated by the random signal caused by thermal noise in a resistor. (see Fig 1)

Only those bits which are taken during the time when the perturbation potential crosses the threshold of the detector (comparator), i.e., 0 in fig 1, may be “switched” to the opposite state. All other bits, such as “b”, may not be switched. In a real system the perturbation amplitude is much smaller than the noise [Page 4] amplitude so that the percentage of total bits which may be switched is small.

  1. The transfer function of the noise generation & detection circuitry spreads out the energy of the effect, with the result that more power is required to produce a given perturbation amplitude.

  1. The type of mechanism used to produce the random output will determine the amount of energy needed to perturb the output a given amount.

A perfect PBS [Polarization Beam Splitter] with a single photon input will produce two possible output states which are exactly equal from an energy or entropic point of view. Therefore, the amount of energy needed to produce either particular output is exactly 0. Any system which produces a simple quantum superposition can provide such an output.

[Page 6] A thermal noise source, which is primarily not quantum mechanical in nature, requires a finite, calculable amount of energy to produce a given perturbation.

[Page 8] Optical or nuclear sources may ultimately be better detectors, but they are much more complex and expensive than thermal or shot noise sources.

Optical sources:

[Page 9] Nuclear Source [Americium-241]:

[Page 11]
ES = fraction of bits switched/switchable bits (effect size)
ES = (Total high bits, ie, in intended direction - ½ total bits)/(½ total bits)
ES = (2 Ibits – Tbits)/Tbits = 2 Sbits/Tbits
Ibits = number of bits in the intended direction.
Tbits = total number of bits in sample.
Sbits = number of bits switched to intended direction.

Given Nrms and VMs, what fraction of the Vn < VMs ? VMs = max voltage of the [mentally-produced] sig.

1 – 2(1 – CDF) = 2 CDF – 1
Sbits = 2 CDF – 1
w/100% efficiency, given Normal (μ = 0, σ = Nrms) eval[uated] @ VMs.