Is the human brain significantly affected by Quantum Mechanics?
613101
Well there is no need for the brain to be based on QM and the people who propose that it is usually make quite a few mistakes as documented in the source.
1026939
Quantum physics underpins everything, but of course you don't need to go that deeply for many practical purposes. For instance, you would not model the architecture of a building at the level of an electron.\n\nBut quantum mechanics is central to understanding and designing all semiconductor devices (not just the newer, esoteric ones), hard drives (which use quantum tunneling), chemicals that require an understanding of the chemical bond (including modelling shapes of biological molecules in the biotech iindustry).\n\nIt is behind MRI scanning, x-rays, digital cameras (a CCD is a fundamentally quantum device), nuclear energy and weapons technology.\n\nIt is essential to cosmology and understanding the stars.\n\nThe list goes on.\n\nAnd no, it is way beyond the status of a theory.
226579
Man there's all kinds of nonverbal communiation.\nBody language, etc.\nbut\nI feel you're wondering about cooler stuff like psychic powers and whatnot...\nPhysically, it all seems possible to me;  One can spends hours, days, weeks researching QM, and a mild conceptual understanding of the amazing subatomic world that makes up our physical reality can really leave one with lots of questions and interesting conclusions...\nWe're built of all those amazing little atoms too.\nThey say we can't really dabble in the world of the quantum mostly because we can't measure it without changing it.\nScience just can't make sensitive enough machines...\nIt took several million years, but we may each have grown an instrument powerful and sensitive enough to muck around in the quantum world.\nI'm talking about the brain, of course.\nPerfect instrument\nno eyepieces, screens, readouts,\nit's wired directly to our perception
510606
Yes you are correct about the unknown Indian bit!! I haven't heard about either him or the experiment, and I haven't found any one else that has, but I think my 'teleportation' gear is playing up a bit, I'll get it re-tuned and try again later!! I thought teleportation was a means of transferring physical matter almost instantly? Not brain waves!!\nAre you sure your brain waves haven't been transfered??
10601
This is one of those wierd questions in Quantum Mechanics where there is no way to visualize the answer. Our brains, understandably, have evolved to handle falling rocks, jumping tigers, and other macroscopic objects. We have numerous hardwired responses to these things which follow classical, Newtonian Physics.\n\nOn the atomic and subatomic scales where objects behave according to the laws of Quantum Mechanics things are different. An electron can behave like a wave in this experiment, but a particle in another experiments. According the classical physics (and our macroscopic-loving brain's "common sense) nothing can be *both* a particle and a wave. \n\nSo what is an electron? A wavicle? A partiave? \n\nNope. An electron is a, well, an electron. Sometime it will behave *exactly* like a wave, other times it will behave *exactly* like a particle. Never will it behave like some intermeditate or mixed state.\n\nThe problem - to the extent there is a problem - is that we cannot visiualize this. There is no way to form a picture in our heads the same way we can form a picture of a ball flying though the air. Our brains are meant to operate on macroscopic phenomena, and subatomic phenomena just behave differently.\n\nPresumably some other alien species could have some sort of mind, or mind-like thing, for which the whole wave-particle duality thing just makes perfect sense! But presumably this aliens would be confused by what are to us the simple motions of a ball flying through the air.\n\nSo, in the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, there is no sense in which the "other forms" of an object change after a wavefunction is collapsed. That this seems to be a problem is more a function of our brains and how they have evolved.\n\n\n(As an aside, it should be said that it is possible to understand the mathematics underlying Quantum Mechanics. And to be able to use this math to make extremely accurate predictions of how electrons, atoms, etc. will behave. These predictions can be tested experimentally and Quantum Mechanics holds up extremely well. \n\nSo while QM is very wierd, there is an enormous amount of evidence that it is correct.)
16307
Quantum physics is a fundamental physical theory that replaces Newtonian mechanics and classical electromagnetism at the atomic and subatomic levels.  It is the underlying framework of many fields of physics and chemistry, including condensed matter physics, quantum chemistry, and particle physics. Often, it is the answer to questions when general relativity fails.
394631
According to the Masters, Yes.\n\nCurious as to why you would ask this question.\n\nA sound is also an energetic field.  All energy affects the whole of the human being.
1061308
Quite frankly I find it fascinating.  I haven't had the opportunity to study up as much as I'd like on the new ideas coming forth, but I would like to suggest a movie to you; it's called "What the *bleep* do we know?".  There are many credited scientists and mathematicians and other experts in their fields who discuss quantum mechanics in a way that your everyday Joe can understand.  Although a good chunk of it shows how the ideas relate back to the body/self.  Some of these ideas are portrayed in a "story" about a deaf photographer--which is an excellent idea, considering much of quantum mechanics deals with the idea of an "ultimate observer".   One warning, though; the movie does, at one point, all but mathematically dispel the notion of "God"...\n\nHope you like it!
147724
The 10% myth is a myth, and has no scientific basis.  Please refer to the link.\n\nAs for your question, "brain storage" is not a quanitifiable notion because human brains are not digital.  You can easily count the digits in a digital computer storage device, but the simple truth is that the human brain does not resemble a digital storage device at all.  Besides that, I doubt that you could point at any person of any gender that maximized capacity, so capacity isn't even really an issue.  No one has learned so much that further learning bcomes impossible.  Computer discs fill up, but brains do not.
249683
(m)\n\nIn recent years physicists have had to address the interplay of consciousness and the physical world. In Quantum Physics much has been made over Bell's Theorem. The implications of this theorem and the experimental findings that flow from it are staggering. They force us to consider that the entire notion of a purely objective world is in conflict not only with the theory of quantum mechanics, but with the facts drawn from actual experiments. These findings point insistently to a profound interaction between conscious mental activity and the physical world itself.
553659
Yes. But it is very difficult to explain as the study of bio mechanics is in the early stages. As everyone knows it is possible to stimulate the brain by either electrical or chemical means. Our brain is active both electrically and chemically. I wish you pursue this line of study as it has huge potential.
12701
Quantum Physics would say "no". It was long supposed that once we got down to a certain level, everything would be predictable, but as you may already know, quantum physics doesn't tell us yes or no - it gives us several statistical maybes and such.
1002140
I don't fully understand what you are receffing to when you say waves. Do you mean brain waves?\n\nIn that case our feelings do influence our brain waves. I don't know much about this but hopefully someone on here can answer that.
1148812
There's a few parts to this question:\n\nCan we turn people into energy?\nYes; it's possible. If you had an equal amount of antimatter, you could annilate the human and get out twice the energy of the human (one lot from the human, one lot from the antihuman). You'd need antimatter, because destroying the subatomic particles that make up humans would violate certain conservation laws; you need to remove (or add) as much antimatter as you do matter.\n\nCan we send the information as a signal?\nThere's two parts to this; can we scan someone, and can we send the scanned information?\n\nScanning seems like it should be impossible due to Heisenburg's uncertainty principle; if you know where something is, you're not sure how fast it is moving, and vice versa. You'd need both pieces of information to classically scan the particle. \nHowever, there has been research into ways of doing so quantum mechanically, and apparently single subatomic particles have been teleported.\n\nHowever, there's an awful lot of particles in the human body; of the order of a billion billion billion, and that'd take a very long time to transfer over any sort of connection.\n\nPutting the pieces back together at the other end may also be tricky. And you don't want to lose any pieces!
261371
It's not that they are at two places at the same time, but there is an equal probability of finding the proton in both places. When you get to the level of quantum mechanics, due to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle we rely on probability curves to get an approximation of the physical world, the funny thing is that the areas with the most probability, are those predicted by Bohr without using quantum mechanics.
730142
Possibly so. Possibly no. I'd say the Heisenberg uncertainty principle comes foremost into play here. Maybe also Schrödinger's cat. Is it dead or still alive? That would make a significant difference, you know. These questions can't just be taken so lightly. And how could you even consider Y!A as a forum to resolve such complex issues as this? More to the point, even assuming Planck scale dynamics can be fully understood with the mathematical tools we have at hand today, where exactly does that get us? We still don't know what topping to put on our pizza this weekend. Or whether a third eye would make a good chick magnet. Or even whether that darn cat is still alive or dead.... 'tis an enduring mystery. And we wouldn't want to take all the mysterious challenge out of life, now would we?....Meow.
697869
One of the key differences of quantum mechanics as compared to classical mechanics, is the probabilistic nature of the universe.  A fundamental concept in the theory is the affect of measuring anything.  We cannot measure something without changing it.  Therefore, the property we are trying to measure always changes when we attempt to measure it.  \nFor example, we can never know the exact postion of an electron in orbit and its momentum (mass, speed and direction) at that position.  We can measure either one, the position or momentum, but never both.  The 'act' of measuring itself will change these properties.  Quantum mechanics, therefore takes a probabilistic approach to the universe.  Going back to the example of an electron in orbit, with classical mechanics you would visualize this as a solid electron floating around its nucleus, almost like a moon orbiting a planet.  Quantum mechanics takes a statisitical approach, since you can never know the exact position and momentum of an electron, you can't picture the electron orbit simply and exactly as classical mechanincs would.  In quantum mechanics one would visualize the electron orbit as an electron density cloud.  Quantum mechanics provides a probabilistic result rather than a deterministic result.  Quantum mechanics can't tell you the exact position and momentum of the electron, but it gives you the probabilty of finding the electron at a given position.  This is pictured by an electron density cloud.  The denser the cloud is at a specific point, the more likely it is that the electron will be at this point.  The theory is not really saying that the electron exists in all these places at once, but instead says here are all the possible places that the electron can be and gives the probability of the electron being at each given spot.  This is a fundamental difference from the exact result we are used to getting from classical mechanics.