Home / Quantum Entanglement, Quantum Biology, and a Hunch About the Human Condition

Quantum Entanglement, Quantum Biology, and a Hunch About the Human Condition

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+1Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

What is quantum entanglement? Nobody this side of Heaven really knows. In one of his more memorable quotes, Einstein called it “spooky action at a distance”.

For those who are unfamiliar with quantum entanglement, it was first theorized by Einstein and two other scientists, and the term ‘entanglement’ was first coined by Erwin Schrödinger in his famous “Schrödinger’s cat” thought experiment.

What quantum entanglement means, to greatly simplify the matter, is that if two particles are entangled, if you observe the state of one particle, then the other particle will be in the same state… except that as soon as one particle is observed in any way, the other particle is automatically disentangled and is forced to take on its own state.

If that makes no sense to you, well, you’re not alone. Physicists can describe what is happening, but none know why it is happening.

I first began reading up on quantum entanglement for a short story I was writing about four years ago… and I found out that research had by then shown that not only quantum particles could be entangled, but such entanglement could be found between complex particles such as atoms and even molecules at significant distances… and apparently, even across discrete periods of time.

I realized then that if complex molecules – which can be a billion times or more larger than elementary particles like quarks – can be entangled in the same manner as quarks then there should be no reason that entanglement would not affect our very bodies, and even be seen or felt by our consciousnesses!

For instance, we’ve all heard of “sympathy pains”, which are called “Couvade syndrome” by the scientific community. Symptoms experienced by the partner can include:

stomach pain, indigestion, changes in appetite, weight gain, diarrhea, constipation, headache, toothache, cravings, nausea, breast augmentation, hardening of the nipple and insomnia. In some extreme cases, fathers can grow a belly similar to a 7-month pregnant woman and gain approximately 25 to 30 pounds.

Could this be an example of entanglement on the macro level? Perhaps, but that’s not the only possible example. We’ve probably all heard of instances where a woman suddenly ‘knew’ when something bad happened to her child or her husband, or of identical twins who were raised apart but led almost identical lives. Just today came the news of two identical 92 year-old twins who died within hours of each other…both by heart failure.

We’ve probably all felt Déjà vu, the experience of feeling sure that one has already witnessed or experienced a current situation, even though the exact circumstances of the previous encounter are uncertain and were perhaps imagined. Personally, I know that I’ve dreamed locations and events that later occurred, accompanied by the sensation of déjà vu… and I’m sure that many readers of this article have felt the same. Now think back to the indications that entanglement may take place across time. Is the sensation of déjà vu an actual experience of “spooky action at a distance” in time? I suspect it is. It’s not proven, but – no pun intended – time will tell.

But the interesting observations don’t stop there. Most of us have seen a flock of starlings flying in formation, all turning, swooping, diving seemingly at the same time…and we’ve all seen (if only on the television) schools of fish doing the same thing. Theories abound for the reasons why birds and fish are able to do this… but the theories of how they’re able to do this are another matter entirely. If the possibility that quantum mechanics might explain how this happens sounds unlikely, consider this: as early as 2000 physicists at the University of Oxford and the University of Singapore published indications that migratory birds use quantum entanglement effects to navigate.

Curiouser and curiouser! It’s gotten so interesting that a new field of scientific study appears to be taking shape: Quantum Biology, the study of how quantum entanglement affects our bodies, our sensory experiences, and even our conscious decisions.

Betcha didn’t see that coming!

There’s a school of thought in psychology called gestalt psychology. The way it was explained to me way back in Psych 101 was that some people come to understanding from the bottom up, by working on the details and putting together the pieces of the puzzle… while others work from the top down, so to speak. After seeing some of the pieces of the puzzle, the person experiences the gestalt and suddenly understands not the details or individual pieces of the puzzle, but instead grasps the overall framework, the scheme of the puzzle.

I agree with this concept because while I honestly suck at details (as several other BC residents can attest), I do often grasp the overall picture, the extrapolations of a concept, even if the details of that concept are not yet known. It is then with no small sense of satisfaction that I can honestly state that I saw where this was going four years ago, where it had to go. If the physicists are right, then it takes but little imagination to see that we do, we must actually experience quantum entanglement in our lives and even in our very awareness.

I normally don’t like making predictions… but while I will never know all the details well enough to speak with authority on the subject, I do feel that I understand the overall concept well enough to predict that as time goes on, biological quantum entanglement will be declared by the scientific community as the overriding factor behind not only what I described above – Déjà vu, sympathy pains, the experiences of identical twins, the behavior patterns of flocks of starlings and schools of fish – but also “mob psychology”, the phenomenon wherein good people who are caught up in crowds wind up doing things that they would never normally do otherwise.

But I cannot honestly take credit for such predictions. I would say that credit would belong to Isaac Asimov, one of the ‘grandmasters’ of the Golden Age of Science Fiction. In his ground-breaking Foundation Series (the first of which was published way back in 1942(!)), he postulated a branch of mathematics known as “psychohistory”, which was:

a concept of mathematical sociology (analogous to mathematical physics). Using the law of mass action, it can predict the future, but only on a large scale; it is error-prone on a small scale. It works on the principle that the behaviour of a mass of people is predictable if the quantity of this mass is very large…. The larger the number, the more predictable is the future.

It is apparent to me that Isaac Asimov was closer to the truth than he could have imagined… but instead of “psychohistory”, it will be called “quantum biology” or – more accurately – “quantum psychology”.

Powered by

About Glenn Contrarian

White. Male. Raised in the deepest of the Deep South. Retired Navy. Strong Christian. Proud Liberal. Thus, Contrarian!
  • Robert Phillips

    I FIRMLY agree! Every since I first read about Quantum Entanglement, and especially at the macro level, I’ve wondered about the dynamics of QE and biology. Considering twins… How you always have a “Connection” with someone that we’ve been intimate with, and so much more!

  • Webb, M.D.

    I truly enjoyed reading this article, and have had some of the same extrapolations myself. Just recently, Scientific American published an article on the entanglement of 2 diamonds, macro scale objects mind you, in which they arrived at conclusive results. If two objects on a macro scale the size of 3mm diamonds can yield results lending credence to quantum entanglement, why not entire complex organisms such as humans, birds, planets, etc?

  • Christopher misquoted me…I was citing Clarke. You know, the gay British one…not the hetero American. Both were atheists, however.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Asimov didn’t persist? Then what do you call his Foundation series?

  • Anthony Weiner has now been hoist by the angle of his own engangled petard. Sheesh.

  • handy, Asimov could have but didn’t, fortunately.

  • Glenn, you persist like a doorstep preacher but are having just as little success!

  • Enganglement: The behavior of entangled electrons in the ganglia.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And if a whole bunch of people who disagree with me and are getting me all wrapped up in their arguments, am I ‘engangled’?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Doc –

    if macro effects looked like quantum effects, we would not be able to perceive solid matter, because it is actually an illusion.

    If the postulation of the birds having a ‘compass built into their eyes’, so to speak, is true, are they really seeing such a compass? Of course not – their brains interpret input and process it in such a way that the birds think is natural.

    Likewise, if humans experience quantum events on a day-to-day basis – and we might, which is the whole gist of the article – then would our brains not process the events in such a way that we would think such are normal? We might even ‘see’ the events…but just as cavemen who saw the stars had no clue what they actually were, we might not know exactly what it is we are seeing. The only real difference, of course, is education.

    I don’t blame you for your caution…but at the same time, I would recommend that you not be too quick to dismiss the possibilities.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Roger –


    A pseudo-science methinks, Glenn, a branch of cognitive “science” perhaps. Are you comfortable reducing mental to neural events? What is it about the former that you don’t understand?

    “Reducing mental to neural events” – wouldn’t that be like reducing bones to molecules? Or – as was implied in the Scientific American article – reducing space and time to the decoherence of quantum events?

    But if we build from the ground up, bones are comprised of molecules, but do not determine what a person does with his bones…and while space and time may be due to the decoherence of quantum events, those quantum events (probably) do not determine how we experience space and time.

    Again, quantum events are not a matter of scale, of size, of complexity, or of biological/non-biological state, but are to be found everywhere, all the time (except possibly in a perfect vacuum). Therefore, to say that quantum events do not sometimes influence our personal lives is short-sighted, to say the least.

    And no, you haven’t said that…but others here seem to be implying exactly that.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Doc – LOL! “Enganglement” – man, but I can think of a few possible meanings of such a word…and not all of them are printable.

  • I’ve been feeling engangled ever since Sarah Palin started her bus tour.

  • Dreadful,

    Since we’re on the subject, I need Digitalu’s website address so I can log in and make my submission.

    Could you please oblige?

  • * I’ve just noticed that Glenn misspelled the word ‘entanglement’ in his title. Can an editor currently sitting in front of a computer on which it is possible for them to log in to Digitalus please go in and fix it? Thanks.

  • Chris’s and Doc’s posts on this thread seem both smug and gratuitous in their ‘we already know this isn’t true, obviously’ stance.

    Not smug, Handy, just cautious.

    I’m quite prepared to accept the idea that quantum events, such as entanglement*, have effects on the macro scale – in fact, it would be surprising if they didn’t.

    But Glenn is suggesting the same effects, repeated exactly on a larger scale. That’s not what the research suggests is happening. In one study, electron entanglement is postulated to provide birds with a compass built into their eyes… it’s not being suggested that when a bird in Alberta turns south, another bird of the same species in Jalisco also turns south at the same instant.

    A simple example of what I’m talking about: if macro effects looked like quantum effects, we would not be able to perceive solid matter, because it is actually an illusion.

  • Leroy

    A few weeks ago I traveled 10,000 miles, halfway around the world, and when I arrived at my destination there was my wife! Of all the places she could have been, there she was! Was it Divine Miracle? Was it Quantum Entanglement? My vast Psychic Powers? Or email?

    Where’s that guy Occam when you need him?

  • A pseudo-science methinks, Glenn, a branch of cognitive “science” perhaps. Are you comfortable reducing mental to neural events? What is it about the former that you don’t understand?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And Chris –

    Don’t say that such claims can’t be proven. Say instead that such claims can’t be proven yet…because twenty years ago, do you really think we would have thought it possible to identify quantum effects in flight patterns of migratory birds?

    In time the possibilities I raised will be proven or disproved…or at least strong indications will be found in one direction or the other. Time will tell…at least to the extent that time actually exists in the quantum world, of course.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Interesting that you don’t have problem with MWI, but you’re troubled by quantum effects on the macro scale…

    …even when more physicists agree with macroscale quantum effects than with MWI.

    When it comes to sympathy pains, did I say that quantum effects ARE responsible? No. What I said was:

    Could this be an example of entanglement on the macro level? Perhaps, but that’s not the only possible example.

    Do you know what ‘perhaps’ means? Of course you do – it means ‘maybe’, or ‘possibly’…but maybe not. It means I don’t know, but it IS a possibility…and for now, that’s ALL that it is – a possibility. I don’t know for sure…but neither do you.

    So I’m saying it’s a possibility, that we just don’t know! Are you going to state flatly that it’s IMPOSSIBLE? I don’t think you will. You might, but I doubt it – you’re more careful than that…even though you seem to be castigating me for merely raising the possibility. Besides, by stating that such is impossible, you’d be going even further out on a limb than you seem to think I am.

    What I am saying instead, Chris, is that there is a new field of science emerging – quantum biology (which is not my term, but from the article)…but I added that at some point there will be a field called “quantum psychology” that would explain in a hard scientific sense, among other things, mob mentality. That claim, far more than anything said about sympathy pains or flocks of starlings, is the greater leap – but whether the leap is of imagination or of faith depends on who’s doing the judging.

  • Another sci-fi quote [already mentioned?]:

    “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”
    — Arthur C. Clarke, 1961

    And although he was an atheist, he could well have said, “magic…or God.”

  • Glenn, the research currently does not at all support your hunch that quantum entanglement is responsible for sympathy pains.

    And, yes, I have heard of the many worlds interpretation, probably long before you ever did, and it didn’t blow my mind at all.

    You appear just to like things that can’t be proven, which is probably mental sympathy pain for your religious beliefs, which can’t be either…

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Chris –

    It’s like Irene said – this is all a hunch…and so far the research at least to some extent supports my hunch.

    Chris, don’t get me wrong! Beyond the few possibilities I brought up, I don’t know where all this is going and I certainly don’t know what practical applications this will have.

    It’s like the old saying – the more you know, the more you realize that there is so much more you don’t know.

    All I am saying is that there are several phenomena such as those that I described in my article that are not explained by our present level of knowledge, that quantum entanglement on the macrobiological level could possibly explain.

    Here’s something else to blow your mind, Chris – and yeah, I can see you rolling your eyes as you read this – have you heard of the Many Worlds Interpretation? Here’s a simple description:

    The many-worlds interpretation is a postulate of quantum mechanics that asserts the objective reality of the universal wavefunction, but denies the actuality of wavefunction collapse, which implies that all possible alternative histories and futures are real – each representing an actual “world” (or “universe”). It is also referred to as MWI, the relative state formulation, the Everett interpretation, the theory of the universal wavefunction, many-universes interpretation, or just many worlds.

    If MWI is right – and there is apparently no real way to test it despite the fact that most physicists support some or all of the theory – then here’s how it works at the most basic level: when a quantum particle changes state, it changes not to one other state, but to all possible states, each state residing in a different and new reality.

    Now extrapolate that concept! Every bit of matter in the universe is made of quanta…which means that every time each quantum particle in the universe changes state (and of course it all won’t happen at the same time), a new set of realities, a new set of universes is made equal in number to (N times X) to the Nth power minus 1…where N is the total number of quanta in the universe and X is the number of all possible states of a quantum particle.

    And this unimaginable explosion of new realities would occur each and every picosecond (or however long it takes) for quantum particles to change states in the natural world.

    Does this all sound really stupid yet? Sure – no argument there! But a poll of 72 leading physicists conducted by the American researcher David Raub in 1995 and published in the French periodical Sciences et Avenir in January 1998 recorded that nearly 60% thought that the many-worlds interpretation was “true” (see the same reference I linked to above).

    But in any case, it seems that MWI, for all its popularity in the physics community, apparently can’t be proven…but macrobiological quantum effects can be proven or disproven, and so far the yeas are shutting out the nays.

    But don’t take my word for it, Chris – pick up the latest issue of Scientific American and read the cover story in full so you can decide how many physicists you think should also be sticking to religion.

  • handy: I am a big fan of Fringe too – and most, though not all, science fiction.

    The “pleasure of fantasizing about alternate realities/universes” has precious little bearing on the predictions made by Glenn and to which he has determinedly stuck. It seems to me that persistence is more smug than the efforts of the Doc and me to point out his, er, over-exuberance…

  • Those of us who love the TV show Fringe know the pleasures of fantasizing about alternate realities/universes.

    My assumption is that we only know a billionth of what there is to know about reality [if even that much]. Chris’s and Doc’s posts on this thread seem both smug and gratuitous in their ‘we already know this isn’t true, obviously’ stance.

  • Yeah, that’s right, Glenn, physicists are going to acclaim you as a visionary – not!

    Irene – so as I said, he should stick to religion not confuse science with gibberish.

    There is “a beautiful poetic rhythm in the universe”, which may or may not have anything to do with quantum entanglement, we just don’t know yet.

    Given that we can’t detect around 80% of our universe, there is obviously more that we don’t know than we do know.

    Attributing unclear processes to theoretical constructs as you and Glenn seek to do is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

  • Glenn said right there in the title it was a HUNCH about the human condition, not a dang hypothesis. Thank you, Glenn. I love reading about things that make me wonder.

    After reading this, I have a HUNCH that there is a beautiful poetic rhythm in the universe, so that even if quantum entanglement is not *directly* responsible for the in-sync traveling patterns of birds and fish, there is some other as-yet-not-understood process at work for which the quantum entanglement behavior of sub-atomic particles is “a thought experiment.”

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Chris –

    What is entanglement? It’s the effect when two discrete amounts of matter which have in some way interacted but are separated by distance and become somehow connected – when one mass is in a certain state, the other will also be in that certain state.

    Remember, space and time and scale of mass are apparently of little consequence. Even Stephen Hawking is postulating that space and time are secondary effects, that entanglement is the primary driver of much of what happens in existence.

    But that’s okay, Chris. Keep an ear to the ground the years go by and the developments keep coming…and in about a decade or so, I’d say some of the physicists will come out and agree with some of what I’ve said in this article – indeed, their observations on the macro level in living things (birds and possibly plants) are already a definite step in that direction that I saw years ago.

    So keep an eye on what’s going on…and I suspect that you and Doc will agree that both of you will owe me a beer in a decade or so (if only the digital kind, of course).

  • Mitchel Eisenstein

    I have been hypothesizing that quantum entanglement of photons observed in the laboratory, might be extrapolated to looking for natural sources of quantum entangled light. I have suggested that perhaps certain types of stars can emit quantum entangled light, such that any planets lying at the exact same radius away from that quantum emitter, can use that light as a carrier signal and they can theoretically communicate with each other over interstellar distances instantaneously. It might be true even if the star that emitted the entangled photons no longer exists. I have contacted the folks at SETI, which have just closed down by the way due to budgetary cutbacks, suggesting this new and novel way to search for alien life, and to my shock I got back an email saying, THEY LIKE MY THINKING ALTHOUGH MOST PHYSICISTS STILL DONT THINK ITS POSSIBLE. But in any event I suggested an experiment to at least try and see of there are natural quantum entangled sources out in the universe, and to catalogue them by sending up a satellite with multiple sensors that rotates slowly, presenting multiple sensors perfectly perpendicular to a potential source, and through observation of the photons at one sensor, a reaction at the other sensor would indicate a natural quantum emitter. Then a map of quantum emitters would distinguish these sources from all other stars, and work could be done to use the existing carrier signals. I liken it to finding what was previously an invisible electrical grid interconnecting the universe. Dr. Mitch Eisenstein [Personal contact info deleted]

  • What Glenn says: “For instance, we’ve all heard of “sympathy pains”, which are called “Couvade syndrome” by the scientific community. Symptoms experienced by the partner can include:

    stomach pain, indigestion, changes in appetite, weight gain, diarrhea, constipation, headache, toothache, cravings, nausea, breast augmentation, hardening of the nipple and insomnia.”

    What the SA article says: “These effects are more pervasive than anyone ever suspected. They may operate in the cells of our body.”

    Glenn, please stick to religion, where this kind of giddy hysteria appears to be acceptable, you are rubbish at logic and science.

  • zingzing

    i’m the evil one. he’s a good boy. he was the first born, and he lords it over me, telling me that i’m “the second born, the one they didn’t want,” which is pretty hilariously true. sigh. i do like him. it’s a pity that i’ll have to strangle him one day.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Is it your evil twin ginzginz? Or is it zingzing with the two syllables reversed?

  • zingzing

    ahem. i myself am an identical twin. we are very different people. and i will kill him.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And about the twins – identical DNA does NOT denote or even approximate the hour, day, week, month, or year of the death of one or both of a set of identical twins. C’mon, you know better than that!

    I agree that it is NOT proof that consciousness or awareness or emotion or even life itself can somehow be affected by macroscale entanglement…but at the same time, Doc, don’t keep your mind closed to the possibility…because we’re beginning to see it already.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Doc –

    In other words, the effect we observe is not what the electrons themselves experience.

    Think it through, Doc – if birds can feel the effect caused by the entanglement of mere electrons, then what is to say we cannot feel the effect caused by complex molecules? Again, nearly all physicists agree that the scale of the entangled object is not much of an issue.

    I know this is hard to grasp…but it’s sorta like Yoda showing Luke that size doesn’t matter, that our individual perspective is the only thing that is limiting your grasp of what the physicists are coming to understand. It’s not the Force, of course, but entanglement – which we now know operates on the macro scale, and not just on the nanoscale.

  • Glenn, the theory is that quantum effects on the electron scale in the birds work to give them a compass on the macro scale. In other words, the effect we observe is not what the electrons themselves experience.

    So you can’t really extrapolate from that that flocks of birds or schools of fish turning in unison is caused by quantum entanglement (though it might be).

    Nor the 92-year-old twins dying within hours of each other. For starters, 92-year-olds dying of heart failure isn’t all that surprising, not to mention that they shared the same DNA (giving them the same life expectancy) and, since they were both monks, the same simple lifestyle.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Doc –

    I don’t dispute that quantum phenomena manifest themselves on the macro level (e.g. superconductivity), but their effects on our scale won’t look like their effects on the quantum level. They can’t.

    Not so.

    1 – it was observed on two scales, one (complex molecules) a billion times larger than the other.

    2 – It appears to be present in the senses of migratory birds (see the link in #13).

    3 – Nearly all physicists agree (see the Scientific American story) that quantum effects occur not only on the quantum level, but on the macro level i.e. complex organisms…and nearly all physicists agree that scale is apparently not an issue.

    In other words, Doc, there’s NO indication that quantum effects are limited to the ‘micro’ scale, and there is an indication that we may indeed be able to experience quantum effects – again, check the reference about migratory birds.

    Doc, the reason I made this leap in reasoning is because of the basic difference between quarks and molecules is this: quarks are (AFAIK) not complex objects…while complex molecules certainly are, and a billion times bigger to boot. In other words, I suddenly understood that quantum effects are NOT limited by complexity OR by size. Therefore we humans will experience quantum effects – and so will fleas and whales…and planets and stars, for that matter.

    And that’s what the Scientific American article’s about – there is apparently no limit on quantum effects due to size or complexity

    From the hardcopy article:

    Thus the fact that quantum mechanics applies on all scales forces us to confront the theory’s deepest mysteries. We cannot simply write them off as mere details that matter only on the very smallest scales. For instance, space and time are two of the most fundamental classical concepts, but according to quantum mechanics they are secondary. The entanglements are primary. They interconnect quantum system without reference to space and time. If there were a dividing line between the quantum and the classical worlds, we could use the space and time of the classical world to provide a framework for describing quantum processes. But without such a dividing line – and, indeed, without a truly classical world – we lose this framework. We must explain space and time as somehow emerging from fundamentally spaceless and timeless physics.

    [Einstein’s] General relativity assumes that objects have well-defined positions and never reside in more than one place at the same time – in direct contradiction with quantum physics. Many physicists, such as Stephen Hawking of the University of Cambridge, think that relativity theory must give way to a deeper theory in which space and time do not exist. Classical spacetime emerges out of quantum entanglements through the process of decoherence.

  • I don’t dispute that quantum phenomena manifest themselves on the macro level (e.g. superconductivity), but their effects on our scale won’t look like their effects on the quantum level. They can’t.

    It’d be a bit like watching TV at a distance of 10 feet and expecting to see nothing but lines on your screen.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And although the full article does NOT appear online – you have to buy the hardcopy which is WELL worth it for those who are interested – here’s a summary:

    Nearly all physicists, though, think it applies to everything, no matter what the size. The reason its distinctive features tend to be hidden is not a simple matter of scale.

    A beer would be nice, Chris and Doc – I’ll keep it cheap – Sam Adams would be nice.

    Over the past several years experimentalists have seen quantum effects in a growing number of macroscopic systems.
    The quintessential quantum effect, entanglement, can occur in large systems as well as warm ones—including living organisms—even though molecular jiggling might be expected to disrupt entanglement.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And for those that don’t want to click the link to the Scientific American article (which is the COVER STORY for this months issue, btw), here’s the title:

    Living in a Quantum World: Quantum mechanics is not just about teeny particles. It applies to things of all sizes: birds, plants, maybe even people

    Gee – “applies to things of all sizes: birds, plants, maybe even people”

    But I get it – I’m just a crackpot….

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Doc –

    Read the references. Entanglement has already been observed in complex molecules…so don’t say it can’t happen when it’s already been scientifically observed and peer-reviewed.

    This is the most pertinent link.

  • Glenn, the main problem with your premise is that quantum anything, by definition, is something that occurs on the subatomic scale, where the general laws of physics don’t apply. As Chris points out, it doesn’t follow from the fact that subatomic particles behave in a certain way that molecules or larger units of matter will.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Chris –

    All I said was that Asimov developed the concept – but not the mechanics behind the concept. I would liken it to Arthur C. Clarke when he first postulated communications satellites, or H.G. Wells when he first wrote about traveling to the moon.

    None of these really knew the engineering that would be necessary to make it happen…but it happened nonetheless. That does NOT automatically mean that Asimov (and myself) was right…

    …but did you read the references? I did take care to use only reputable sources…

    …and if a certain thing can happen to a quark AND to a complex module a billion times bigger, chances are REAL good the thing can happen on a much larger scale still.

  • There’s also no reason that entanglement does exist on a much larger scale. You are simply speculating, which is fun, but not science.

    Furthermore, sixty years on, psychohistory is still just a fanciful theory, not a scientific practice.

  • re #2, done.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Chris –


    Hey – entanglement’s already been observed in complex molecules…and since that’s on a scale a billion times larger than quarks, there’s absolutely no reason whatsoever that entanglement doesn’t exist on a much larger scale than molecules. It’s ONLY a matter of scale, and nothing more.

    All I did was point out possible – or even likely – experiences we all have that are difficult at best to explain…until quantum mechanics comes into the picture.

    I realized this four years ago, and Asimov first developed the concept (if not the mechanics behind the concept) sixty years ago…and the references I gave show that it really looks like we’re on to something! It’s nice when a PhD publishes an article in a respected magazine that gives credence to a hunch you had four years before….

    Just keep this in mind a decade or so from now, Chris!

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Doggone it –

    For the editor, on page one:

    I realized then that if complex molecules – which can be a billion times or more larger than elementary particles like quarks – then then there should be no reason that entanglement would not affect our very bodies, and even be seen or felt by our consciousnesses!

    SHOULD read:

    “…elementary particles like quarks – can be entangled in the same manner as quarks, then there…”

    in other words, please add “can be entangled in the same manner as quarks” and take out the redundant “then”.

  • I’d stick to religion if I were you, Glenn…