See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/235988533

Mind and Tachyons: How Tachyon Changes Quantum Potential and Brain
Creates Mind

Article  in  NeuroQuantology · June 2011

DOI: 10.14704/nq.2011.9.2.320

CITATIONS READS

11 927

1 author:

Syamala Hari

25 PUBLICATIONS   134 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Mind and Tachyons View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Syamala Hari on 01 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

NeuroQuantology | June 2011 | Vol 9 | Issue 2 | Page 255-270 255
Hari SD., Mind and tachyons

Original Article

Mind and Tachyons:

How Tachyon Changes Quantum Potential
and Brain Creates Mind
Syamala D. Hari
Abstract
We propose that memory and thought in the brain involve tachyons. As a first step, in
an earlier paper it was suggested that mental units called psychons by Eccles could be
tachyons. Although experiments to detect faster-than-light particles have not been
successful so far, recently, there has been renewed interest in tachyon theories in
various branches of physics. We suggest that tachyon theory may be applicable to
brain physics as well. The present paper describes how the zero-energy tachyon field
has various features of mind-fields which have been postulated by some well known
mind-matter researchers. We propose that the relation between the tachyon field and
the change it produces in the quantum potential of the system with which the tachyon
interacts is similar to the relation between an algorithm and its representation stored
in a computer (digital or quantum). The quantum potential which is software-like, and
the holographic memory which is database-like, both provide codes in the hardware-
like physical brain, for the “real information” or the “meaning” which consists of
tachyons. We show that our proposal can mathematically describe how mind acts on
the physical brain as well as how the brain acts on mind. As an example of how the
brain creates experience in the form of tachyons, we explain the Libet delay-and-
antedating paradox using this proposal.

Key Words: quantum potential, mind field, tachyon, exocytosis, computer and brain,
artificial intelligence, temporal anomalies
NeuroQuantology 2011; 2: 255-270

1. Introduction1 tachyon (ZET) field has various features of

In an earlier paper (Hari, 2008), it was mind-fields which have been postulated or
suggested that mental units called psychons anticipated by some well known mind-
by Eccles could be zero-energy tachyons. matter researchers. We propose that the
Although experiments to detect faster-than- relation between the tachyon field and the
light particles have not been successful so change it produces in the quantum potential
far, recently, there has been renewed interest of the system with which the tachyon
in tachyon theories in various branches of interacts is the relation between an
physics. We suggest that tachyon theory may algorithm and its representation stored in a
be applicable to brain physics as well. The computer (digital or quantum). The
present paper describes how a zero-energy quantum potential which is software-like,
and the holographic memory which is
Corresponding author: Syamala D. Hari database-like, both provide codes in the
Address: 709 Margaret Court, NJ 07080 USA hardware-like brain, for the “real
Phone: + 9087563311 information” or the “meaning” which
e-mail: murty_hari@yahoo.com
Received July 31, 2010. Revised Nov 24, 2010. consists of tachyon fields.
Accepted Dec 14, 2010.

ISSN 1303 5150 www.neuroquantology.com

NeuroQuantology | June 2011 | Vol 9 | Issue 2 | Page 255-270 256
Hari SD., Mind and tachyons

A tachyon is essentially different In the present paper, we point out

from ordinary matter in the sense that a that tachyon fields have properties which
material particle cannot be accelerated to be have been attributed to mind fields by brain
a tachyon and conversely a tachyon cannot scientists such as Libet and Eccles, and
be decelerated to have a speed less than that physicists such as Bohm and Hiley.
of light. Tachyon mass is purely imaginary Some features of the ZET field are:
in any laboratory frame of reference2. All
attempts to produce tachyons from matter • It contributes to the active
have not been successful so far and led information defined by Bohm and
Feinberg to conjecture that probably Hiley (1984), which acts on
tachyons cannot be produced from matter Schrödinger particles. Like the
(1970). In a Scientific American article, Conscious Mental Field proposed by
Feinberg (1970) mentions “One remote Libet (1993; 1994; 1996), a ZET could
possibility is that tachyons do interact with act on certain neural activities that
matter and can exchange energy with them take place in willed actions.
but cannot be produced from them.” It is (Specifically, a ZET’s role in
this point of view that we adopt in this exocytosis is described in Hari
article. However, in section 4 we show that (2008) and summarized in this
new tachyons are created when tachyons paper.)
interact with nonrelativistic matter • ZET interaction with a brain’s matter
(although they may not be produced from obeys all known conservation laws of
matter alone). Although in general, physics.
physicists are skeptical about tachyon
• When a ZET interacts with material
existence we belong to the minority who
quantum particles, it changes the
believe that tachyons can be found if
probability density of finding them in
attempts are made in the right place; we
a given state. It generates the back-
believe that a living brain is a right place to
action term in the continuity
look for them. Tachyons could not be found
equation of the particles. Back-action
so far in lifeless matter-to-matter
is considered to be a necessary
interactions; our hope is to find them in
condition for describing any form of
interactions with the brain’s nonrelativistic
living matter using quantum theory
matter.
by Sarfatti (1996).
When we associate tachyons with
mind, we adopt the point of view of Shay and • A ZET is associated with
Miller (1977) that a tachyon is more like a electromagnetic scalar and vector
field than a particle (Recami, 1986). Shay potentials which generate zero
and Miller (1977) treat tachyons as strictly electric and magnetic fields. Just as
nonlocal phenomena produced and absorbed electromagnetic potentials cannot be
by detectors in a coherent and cooperative observed directly but only indirectly
way. In this view, a tachyon cannot be through their effects, it is possible
created in one position to be later absorbed that ZETs could not be directly
or measured at another position; the tachyon observed by any external physical
must be created or absorbed over a region of device but only indirectly by any
space, and therefore one cannot talk in terms effects they introduce on neural
of time of flight from one position to activities.
another. Nevertheless, a speed which is • ZETs may be said to be non-material
greater than the speed of light can be because the mass of a tachyon is
associated with the tachyon.3 purely imaginary (in our laboratory
frames of reference and all physically
realizable frames moving with speeds
2
In a Lorentz frame of reference, which moves with a speed less than the speed of light).
greater than the speed of light relative to a lab frame, the However, tachyons fit well into
tachyon mass would be seen as real but such frames are
impossible to realize.
3
A tachyon has real energy and momentum. Denoting the /√(v2/c2−1) (Feinberg 1967. p 159) and m0 is the mass of the
momentum by p, the velocity v is given by p = m0 v tachyon in the frame of reference fixed in itself and is real.
ISSN 1303 5150 www.neuroquantology.com
NeuroQuantology | June 2011 | Vol 9 | Issue 2 | Page 255-270 257
Hari SD., Mind and tachyons

quantum theory and at least some do the task of the psychon; that is, interact
mathematical tools exist for use in with the bouton and increase the probability
theoretical investigations. of the exocytosis state. We introduce the
For quite some time, the author interaction into the same quantum tunneling
(Hari, 2002; Vishnubhatla, 1985) has held model of Beck and Eccles. Since the
the view that thought processes in a brain Schrödinger equation is not invariant under
involve tachyons defined by physicists Lorentz transformations, we will not require
sometime ago. Some intuitive rationale for our description to be invariant under Lorentz
this hypothesis may be found in the stated transformations either (like e.g., usually,
references. It is interesting that Fred Alan descriptions of electromagnetic interactions
Wolf (2008) recently stated some quantum with nonrelativistic matter are not Lorentz-
field theoretical concepts associating invariant). As Recami (1986; 9(6):36) points
tachyons to mind. In the past, there has out, “Given a phenomenon ph, the principle
been at least one theoretical physicist, Late of relativity requires that two different
Regis Dutheil, a quantum physicist and a inertial observers O1, O2 find that ph is
consciousness researcher, who proposed a ruled by the same physical laws but it does
model in which mind is a field of tachyonic not require O1, O2 to give the same
or superluminal matter4. description of ph”. However, if we assume
that local observers of the brain do not move
In section 2, we present a part of the relative to the observed brain with speeds
theory of the earlier paper (Hari, 2008) for comparable to the light speed c in vacuum,
convenience of reading. Using the quantum then tachyons whose speeds are much
tunneling model of Beck and Eccles (1992), greater than c may be regarded as close to
and Bohmian model of quantum mechanics, infinity when compared to speeds of the
we describe how a ZET when absorbed nonrelativistic matter in the brain. Hence,
collectively by the multiple boutons of a although a tachyon with infinite speed in one
dendron, changes their quantum potential frame of reference may have a finite speed in
and triggers exocytosis simultaneously in all another frame, the speed could still be much
of them. In this section, we compare ZET greater than c, if the relative speed of the two
features with those of mind fields proposed frames is much lower than c5. The energy of
by Eccles, Libet, Bohm, and Hiley. a ZET in one frame would be close to zero in
the other frame also; but in all local frames
Assumptions tachyons will be found to exchange a finite
Since the Beck-Eccles model of exocytosis and non-zero momentum with the brain’s
uses the nonrelativistic Schrödinger matter. Moreover, as already mentioned,
equation, obviously they assumed exocytosis they would not be found as particles flying
to be a nonrelativistic process. Hence we around with faster-than-light speeds but
make the same assumption in our they would be fields spread over regions of
discussion. Eccles also assumed that for the brain.
exocytosis to occur, a certain nonmaterial Similarly, in Section 4, where we
psychon should intervene and increase the describe ZET production as the reaction of
probability of the required brain state which the system of nonrelativistic material
is a solution of the Schrödinger equation. In particles on a ZET which acts upon the
what follows, we will describe how a tachyon particles, again, we do not require the
having zero energy in the laboratory frame of description to be relativistically invariant
reference in which a bouton is observed, can because one participant of the interaction,

4
Dutheil, M.D. considered that the mind, though of
tachyonic nature, belongs to the true fundamental universe 5
The velocity transformation law relating velocities v and v′
and that our world is merely a subluminal holographic of a particle relative to Lorentz frames moving with relative
projection. He taught physics and biophysics at "Poitiers" velocity u gives the following relation between the speeds:
Faculty of Medicine. He dedicated himself to research in v=|v|, v′=|v′|, u=|u|.
fundamental physics from 1973 on. He was the author of
"Superluminous Man" & "Superluminous Medicine". He ( )
v′2 / c 2 = 1 + [ v 2 / c 2 − 1][1 − u2 / c 2 ]/[ 1 − u.v / c 2 ]2
was a joint Director in "Louis de Broglie" Physics Foundation (Feinberg, 1967; 159) so that v′>c if v>c. If v = ∞ then v′=
in Paris (Evellyn Elsaesser Valarino 1997). c2/u; therefore v′>>c if u<<c.
ISSN 1303 5150 www.neuroquantology.com
NeuroQuantology | June 2011 | Vol 9 | Issue 2 | Page 255-270 258
Hari SD., Mind and tachyons

namely the system of particles is 2. A Zero-Energy Tachyon Can Trigger

nonrelativistic. Exocytosis
We use Bohmian model of Eccles calls some fundamental neural units
Schrödinger equation to describe the of the cerebral cortex dendrons, and
quantum tunneling process and like many proposes that each of the 40 million
mathematicians and physicists, accept dendrons is linked with a mental unit, or
Bohm’s causal interpretation of psychon, representing a unitary conscious
nonrelativistic quantum mechanics (QM) experience. Based on physicist Friedrich
because it agrees with experimental results Beck’s (Beck and Eccles, 1992; Beck, 1996)
(Holland, 1993; 104–107). One essential quantum mechanical analysis of bouton
aspect of this interpretation is the ontology exocytosis, he proposes the hypothesis that
of quantum particle and its trajectories in willed actions and thought, psychons act
(Stapp 1995, Goldstein et al., 1995-2009; on dendrons and become neurally effective
Holland, 1993; Hiley and Pylkkanen, 2005; by momentarily increasing the probability of
Figure 1) which has been used (e.g., Bittner, exocytosis in selected cortical areas. Thus
2000) in quantum tunneling problems. We Eccles postulated a “mind-field” that could
are aware that some physicists raised somehow alter quantum transition
objections to Bohmian interpretation and the probabilities but gave no indication as to
particle ontology and that others refuted how this could happen. We repeat here the
those objections but a discussion of the part of an earlier paper (Hari, 2008) where it
validity of either side is out of scope of this was shown that a zero-energy tachyon could
article. Considering that every interpretation perform precisely the function of a psychon
of QM is supported by some and not liked by as described by Eccles. It will be seen that a
others, we accept Bohm’s interpretation as ZET can act as a trigger for exocytosis
do many experienced mathematicians and (modeled by Friedrich Beck as a quantum
physicists. However, like Stapp (2007), we tunneling process), not merely at a single
do not agree with the part of Bohm’s theory presynaptic terminal but at all selected
which associates consciousness with an terminals in the interacting dendron by
infinite tower of quantum potentials, each momentarily transferring momentum to
one piloting the one below. Why we differ vesicles, thereby decreasing the effective
from Bohm is explained in section 3. barrier potential and increasing the
probability of exocytosis at all boutons at the
In section 3, we explain that a ZET same time (again, simultaneity is not
field in the brain is related to Bohm-Hiley Lorentz-invariant but we are not requiring
quantum potential analogously to how an Lorentz-invariance of an interaction
algorithm in a programmer’s head is related involving nonrelativistic matter nor of
to its representation, namely a certain code, descriptions of phenomena).
entered and stored in the computer’s
hardware. However, unlike in a computer, The Klein-Gordon equation for a free
the ZET encodes itself by making changes in tachyon with a proper mass m0 (mass in the
the quantum potential. frame of reference fixed in itself and a
In section 4, we will see how our ZET positive real number) is written as
proposal can mathematically describe how (∂ ∂
ν
ν
− m2 ) φ ( X ) = 0 (2.1)
mind acts on matter as well as how biological
matter in a brain acts on mind. We explain where vector X = ( ct, − x, − y, − z ) = ( x 0 , x 1 , x 2 , x 3 )
that the biological matter in a living brain and ∂ ν stands for differentiation with respect
creates meaning and experience (in the form to xν, ∂ ν = η µν ∂ μ where η µν is the Minkowski
of ZETs) although any matter outside the
brain does not. metric; m = m 0c / ћ , c is the speed of light in
In section 5, we explain Libet’s delay- free space, and ћ is the Planck’s constant.
and-antedating paradox using the ZET Writing x = ( x, y,z ) and φ ( X ) = Ψ ( x ) Ψ΄ ( t ) we
proposal. get solutions of the form eiωt Ψ(x) of
equation (2.1) where Ψ(x) satisfies
( −Δ − m ) Ψ( x) =
2
0 and ω2 / c 2 = k 2 − m2 (2.2)

ISSN 1303 5150 www.neuroquantology.com

NeuroQuantology | June 2011 | Vol 9 | Issue 2 | Page 255-270 259
Hari SD., Mind and tachyons

Hence the frequency ω is real only for would only transfer momentum to a charged
k ≥m. In the frame of reference in which the particle but no energy.
energy of a tachyon vanishes, the magnitude Beck and Eccles (1992) modeled
of the momentum is equal to m0c and the exocytosis as a quantum tunneling process of
tachyon has infinite speed. The interaction of a two-state quasiparticle governed by a one-
such a tachyon with ordinary matter would dimensional Schrödinger equation:
be to instantaneously transfer momentum
but no energy in a manner analogous to a iћ∂ t ψ ( q,t ) = − ( ћ 2 / 2M ) ( ∂ q 2 + V ( q ) ) ψ ( q,t ) (2.5)
rigid body’s transferring impulses where q is the quasiparticle’s degree of
instantaneously in a collision without freedom, M is the mass of the particle, V(q)
exchanging energy (Sudarshan, 1970). the external potential energy, and ћ is the
Sudarshan (1969) further describes: “In a
Plank’s constant. Writing the quasiparticle
sense, then, tachyons reintroduce
wave-function ψ ( q,t ) of equation (2.5) as
instantaneous action-at-a-distance
iS ( q,t ) / ћ
characteristic in a relativistic theory. An ψ ( q,t ) = Re , where R and S are real
event interpreted as instantaneous action- valued functions and equating the real and
at-a-distance in one Lorentz frame will imaginary parts on both sides of we obtain
appear to be a propagated action in another the following two equations:
frame.”
∂ t S + ( ∂ q S ) / 2M + Q + V ( q ) = 0
2
(2.6)
A zero-energy solution of (2.2)
corresponds to frequency ω = 0 and k2 = m2
and satisfies the Helmholtz equation:
(
∂ tR 2 + ∂q R 2∂q S / M = 0 ) (2.7)

ΔΦ ( x ) = − m 2 Φ ( x ) (2.3) In equation (2.6), ( )

Q = −ћ 2 ∂ q 2 R / 2MR is

Equation (2.3) has multiple linearly called the quantum potential; the particle’s
total energy E = −∂tS, and ∂qS is the
independent solutions Φ ( x ) ) corresponding particle’s momentum. Once (2.5) is solved
to a given value of m. Each solution for the wavefunction ψ ( q,t ) , the particle’s
represents a field with zero energy and trajectories can be computed classically from
capable of exchanging momentum with a
Mdq / dt = ∂ q S or
particle of matter. We take Φ ( x ) to be real. (2.8)
Md 2 q / dt 2 = −∂ q ( Q + V )
To describe the interaction of a field
satisfying equation (2.3) with a particle by prescribing initial conditions (see Holland
whose motion is governed by a Schrödinger 1993: equations 3.2.19 and 3.2.24 on pages
equation, we associate with Φ ( x ) the 73 and 74 respectively). Just before
electromagnetic field defined by the four- tunneling begins motion is classical and E =
potential: V and Q = 0; hence in equation (2.6) the
particle’s kinetic energy (∂qS)2 /2M = 0 at
à = ( ∂ ν φm ( x, t ) ) = ( U,A ) (2.4) this time. As the potential V increases and
becomes > E, motion is classically forbidden.
where
As long as the particle remains in the state of
φm ( x ,t ) = e imct Φ ( x ) , no exocytosis, it has not crossed the barrier
U = ∂ 0φm ( x ,t ) = ime imct Φ ( x ) V> E, the particle’s momentum ∂qS remains
zero and the quantum potential Q adjusts
and A = −(∂ 1, ∂ 2, ∂ 3)φm ( x ,t ) = −e imct ∇Φ ( x ) . itself so that Q+V = E; Q+V cannot be > E
because (∂qS)2 cannot be negative. On the
Note that the potentials A and U give rise other hand, Q+V can be < E although V > E;
to zero electric and magnetic fields. if so, the second of equations (2.8) gives
According to Eccles (1992), the interaction of trajectories penetrating the barrier (Holland
psychon and dendron is momentary and 1993, p 199) and equation (2.6) gives a
hence we take t = 0 as the time of interaction nonzero kinetic energy.
of the tachyon with the dendron. We find
The electromagnetic interaction with
that at t=0, the scalar potential is purely
the tachyon field changes the equation (2.5)
imaginary whereas the vector potential is
to:
real and therefore, the zero-energy tachyon
ISSN 1303 5150 www.neuroquantology.com
NeuroQuantology | June 2011 | Vol 9 | Issue 2 | Page 255-270 260
Hari SD., Mind and tachyons

⎧⎡I ( ћ / i ) ∂ − ( ε / c ) eimct A ( r )⎤2 / 2M + ⎫

⎪
iћ ∂t ψ΄( q,t ) = ⎨⎣
q ⎦ ⎪
⎬ψ΄( q,t )
(2.9) Where ( )
Q΄ = −ћ 2 ∂ q 2 R΄ / 2MR΄ (Equations
⎩⎪iεme imct
Φ ( ) ( )
r + V q ⎭⎪ (2.12) are the same as equations 3,11.18 and
where r = r(q) is the quasiparticle position, 3.11.23 on p 126 of The Quantum Theory of
and A ( r ) = −∇Φ ( r ) , I is the unit vector along Motion by Holland (1993).) In (2.10), the
first term ∂tS' = −E is total energy of the
its velocity, and ε is the quasiparticle’s particle and same as in (2.6) because no
charge. To describe the momentary energy is exchanged. At t = 0, the particle’s
interaction, we will consider equation (2.9) momentum changed from p which is zero
in a small time interval δt and take its limit before interaction, to p − εA / c after
as δt tends to zero. (One may wonder why
interaction. Therefore, after interaction, the
eimct is present in equation (2.9) but not the
particle’s momentum is εA ( r ) / c = ε∇Φ ( r ) / c ;
delta-function δ ( t ) if (2.9) is supposed to
kinetic energy is the second term in (2.10)
describe a momentary interaction. Note that
and equal to ( ε ∇Φ ( r ) / c ) / 2M . Hence, at
2
from the definition of the four-potential in
equation (2.4) the scalar and vector
t=0, if ∇Φ ( r ) ≠ 0 at the position r, then from
potentials are A = e imct A ( r ) and
(2.10), we have
U = ime imct Φ ( r ) . Here, eimct cannot be
Q΄ + V = E − ( ε∇Φ ( r ) / c ) / 2M < E
2
replaced by δ ( t ) nor multiplied by δ ( t ) (2.13)
because then A and U will not satisfy the The second of equations (2.12) may
wave equation and therefore cannot be be used now to determine the particle’s
inserted into the Schrodiger equation as trajectory classically. It permits the particle
electromagnetic potentials. Moreover, the to penetrate through the barrier (Holland
δ ( t ) factor will make them infinitely large at 1993, p 199). In other words, exocytosis
t=0 whereas a ZET has only a finite takes place in the bouton originally governed
momentum even at the instant of impulse by the equation of motion (2.5). Moreover, if
transmission; the ZET gives only a gentle the tachyon mass m in is sufficiently small
push to the vesicles but would not act like a then ∇Φ ( r ) ≠ 0 in a region covering the
thunderbolt). In the time interval δt , a non- whole dendron (Hari 2008). Then the
zero solution ψ΄ ( q,t ) of equation (2.9) is inequality (2.13) is valid for all the boutons
in a whole dendron. Hence exocytosis takes
related to the solution ψ ( q,t ) equation (2.5)
place simultaneously in all the boutons
as follows: which are ready for exocytosis.
ψ΄ ( q,t ) = ψ ( q,t ) exp i[ −(cos mct After the momentary tachyon
+i sin mct )εΦ ( r ) / cћ ] interaction is turned off, that is, after the
sufficiently small time interval δt , the
The effect of tachyon interaction on particle’s wave function evolution reverts
equations (2.6), (2.7), and (2.8) can be back to that described by equations (2.5) and
obtained by substituting particle motion reverts back to that
iS΄( q,t ) / ћ
ψ΄ ( q,t ) = R΄e in (2.9) and equating real described by equations (2.5) - (2.8) but with
parts on both sides of equation. It is seen a different initial condition: the particle
that for t ≤ δt and sufficiently small δt , initial momentum is εA ( r ) / c where r is the
equations (2.6), (2.7), and (2.8) change particle’s position soon after δt . This is the
respectively to (2.10), (2.11), and (2.12) effect of equation (2.9) which introduces a
below: phase factor −εΦ ( r ) / cћ in the wave function
∂ t S΄ + ( ∂ q S΄ − εA / c ) / 2M + Q΄ + V ( q ) = 0
2
(2.10) of equation (2.5). Once the quasiparticle
crosses the barrier, that is, the quantum
( )
∂ t R΄2 + ∂ q R΄2 ( ∂ q S΄ − εA .I / c ) / M = 2εmΦR΄2 (2.11) tunneling is completed the particle motion
may even switch to classical motion.
Mdq / dt = ( I∂ q S΄ − εA / c )
(2.12)
and Md 2 q / dt 2 = −∂ q ( Q΄ + V ) The Field Φ Satisfies All the Criteria of
Eccles’s and Margenau’s Mind Field.

ISSN 1303 5150 www.neuroquantology.com

NeuroQuantology | June 2011 | Vol 9 | Issue 2 | Page 255-270 261
Hari SD., Mind and tachyons

From the analysis in the above section, it is field Φ does exactly what Hiley and
clear that the field Φ does exactly what Pylkkanen are hoping for a mind-field to do;
Eccles proposed that a psychon would do: it changes the quantum potential of
• Φ alters quantum transition quasiparticles to effectively reduce the height
probabilities as seen from equation of their barriers and thereby increases the
(2.11) where the right hand side is not probability of exocytosis. In the footnote
zero after interaction with the accompanying the above quote, Hiley and
field Φ whereas the right of hand side Pylkkanen say:
of equation (2.7) is zero and implies “However, different doctrines in the
conservation of probability. philosophy of mind might interpret the
idea of a “mind-field” in their own way
• Φ increases probability of exocytosis (in case they would accept such an idea).
in all boutons of the interacting E.g., a property dualist could see it as a
dendron simultaneously. Φ gives a mental property; a functionalist would
little push as it were, to all the focus on the functional role it plays; an
boutons at the same time leading to eliminative materialist could see it as a
simultaneous exocytosis in those new scientific (physicalist) concept of
which are ready for it. Eccles’s mind, replacing traditional folk-
psychological categories.”
rationale (Eccles, 1990) for the
hypothesis of mental interaction From what we have presented about
includes the argument that mental our tachyon field Φ so far, it meets the
intention must be neurally effective criteria of all the three doctrines. It performs
by momentarily increasing the the function of the mental property volition
probabilities for exocytosis in a whole proposed by Eccles and plays the functional
dendron and coupling the large role of changing the quantum potential of a
number of probability amplitudes to Schrödinger equation; the field Φ should
produce coherent action because in satisfy a materialist as well because a branch
the absence of mental activity these of theoretical physics already describes it
probability amplitudes would act although experimental verification of the
independently, causing fluctuating theory is not available so far.
EPSPs (excitatory postsynaptic
potentials) in the pyramidal cell. The Field Φ Produces Back-Action in
• The interaction conserves total the Continuity Equation
momentum because Φ is absorbed Sarfatti (1996), another associate of Bohm
collectively by the boutons and the calls any function F(r(t)) ≠ 0 (not necessarily
momentum of Φ is shared by them. a solution of the Helmholtz equation) that
The four-momentum of all depends upon the actual position r(t) of the
interacting boutons together is also particle at time t, on the right-hand side of
conserved because the mass of each equation (2.7), as back-action. He interprets
bouton is reduced by spilling its that such an F(r(t)) implies that the
contents (neurotransmitters) into a quantum wave field is directly affected by the
postsynaptic cleft (a body at rest can conditions of the particles and therefore
absorb a zero energy tachyon only if completes a feed-back control loop between
its rest mass decreases during the the particle and its wave-function.
interaction [Recami, 1986] and this Probability current is not locally conserved
condition is satisfied here). and maximal uncontrollable randomness is
not possible if this term is present. He thinks
that all forms of life must have back-action in
The Field Φ Contributes to Active
the sense that if mind-like quantum
Information
potential acts on the material particle to
Hiley and Pylkkanen (2005) say “Let us guide it into an eigenstate then the particle
assume that the ‘mind-field’ can be seen as should also impact the mind-like quantum
containing active information which wave. He thinks that back-action is a
contributes to the quantum potential.” As necessary condition for describing any form
already seen in the previous sections, the of living matter using quantum theory.

ISSN 1303 5150 www.neuroquantology.com

NeuroQuantology | June 2011 | Vol 9 | Issue 2 | Page 255-270 262
Hari SD., Mind and tachyons

Clearly, equation (2.11) is the same as field makes a “two-way traffic” between the
equation (2.7) except for the function Φ on two levels possible. However, as Sarfatti
its right-hand side. Therefore a living brain (1996) points out, Bohm and Hiley
which includes Φ satisfies Sarfatti’s criterion themselves write “the Schrödinger equation
for a quantum-theoretical description. for the quantum field does not have sources,
nor does it have any other way by which the
3. How Tachyon Field Relates to field could be directly affected by the
Quantum Potential condition of the particles...". Hence their
Bohm’s quantum potential for a system of proposal includes only the action of mind on
particles is an intrinsic property of the matter but not the action of matter on mind.
system. It depends only on the form of the Sarfatti emphasizes that the existence of the
Schrödinger wave function of the system, but “reverse traffic” is a necessary condition for
not on the wave’s intensity. It acts as it were, matter to be living matter.
as a common pool of “active information”, Eccles, on the other hand, proposed
which provides a nonlocal connection and explicit dualist-interactionism. For him mind
guides them as an “internal” force into is a nonmaterial field carrying little or no
organized movement. Bohm (1990) views the energy, which nevertheless can trigger neural
quantum potential as a mind-like quality of processes. He did not elaborate on the
matter which reveals itself strongly at the interaction in the reverse direction, that is,
quantum level, in the movements of the how the brain acts upon the mind field
particles. He extends this notion of “mind- though. Our proposal that the mind may
like” active information to processes of include zero-energy tachyon fields is
thought and says (Bohm, 1990); compatible with Eccles’s proposal in the
“There is a kind of active information sense that tachyons are nonmaterial and can
that is simultaneously physical and have no energy unlike matter fields, but they
mental in nature. Active information can can interact with material particles such as
thus serve as a kind of 'bridge' between neurons. Further, our proposal has the
these two sides of reality as a whole.
advantage that tachyons are mathematically
These two sides are inseparable, in the
sense that information contained in defined and therefore the proposal makes it
thought, which we feel to be on the possible to develop a mathematical theory of
'mental' side, is at the same time a related action of the brain’s material on the tachyon
neurophysiological, chemical, and part of the mind (see section 4).
physical activity (which is clearly what is Our proposal may not be compatible
meant by the 'material' side of this with the Bohm-Hiley proposal that mind
thought).”
consists of superquantum potentials of the
Like Bohm. Hiley and Pylkkanen brain at various levels in the hierarchy of
(2005) see the “mind-field” as a fairly subtle quantum potentials described by them (e.g.,
level of reality, which has both a physical Bohm, 1990); or at least the compatibility is
aspect and a more subtle mental aspect. not obvious and requires a mathematical
They assume that the mind-field’s physical proof. On the other hand, we believe that
aspect, though subtle, allows it to influence there is a relationship between the tachyon
other physical levels (e.g., the known neural field and the quantum potential; it is similar
levels) and be influenced by them. They to the relationship between an algorithm and
claim that such assumptions imply avoiding its representation stored in a computer
dualism or idealism without falling into (digital or quantum). We will explain this
reductive materialism. They say “mind” acts relationship in the next section.
on “matter” but not in the sense of a
mechanical interaction of two separate An algorithm in a computer
substances. Rather, mind is to be understood programmer’s head is not the same as
as a new level containing active information, its representation stored in a
which affects the quantum potential, which computer (digital or quantum)
in turn affects the physical processes in the Nowadays, computers can perform many
brain. Hiley and Pylkkanen state that the tasks which in earlier days, were supposed to
dual role (mental and physical) of the mind- require a high level of intelligence and

ISSN 1303 5150 www.neuroquantology.com

NeuroQuantology | June 2011 | Vol 9 | Issue 2 | Page 255-270 263
Hari SD., Mind and tachyons

education. E.g., today’s Artificial Intelligence program in this series are not identical with
(AI) programs can simulate several thought the meaning in the programmer’s or user’s
processes such as learning and problem head; they are merely representations of
solving. This is all possible because the some meaning that exists only in a human
human brain is in some ways, similar to a being’s head. Actually, each of the programs
computer. Indeed, many consciousness is an algorithm in the programmer’s head
researchers have used the computer and already exists in the computer memory
metaphor in their scientific explanations of as a representation in terms of SSHUs before
consciousness (e.g., Pribram, 2004). the process begins. Thus the entire process
Computer users frequently use expressions of execution of these programs is a material
like "the computer knows", "it does not physical process to which meaning is
understand", "it thinks", and so on. In fact, assigned by a human being. In other words,
we can precisely define what we mean when we have just reiterated Pribram’s theme that
we say "the computer knows the object". the medium is not the message (Pribram,
2004). However I do not agree with the
Definition 1. A computer behaves as if it other theme of Pribram that communication
knows an object (a data item or a program is mental (Pribram, 2000) where he assumes
instruction), when a representation of that that communication is necessarily mental.
object as bytes of "0"s and "1"s in a digital We hold the view that all
computer or qubit states in a quantum communication known to us so far is
computer, in other words, as a sequence of physical and we are struggling to
states of some hardware units (SSHU), understand mental communication. The
exists in its memory. same meaning may be conveyed by different
Once such a representation is entered words in different languages. Hence the
into a computer's memory, it can perform meaning is different from any of the words
any number of operations with that which are used to convey the meaning.
representation. The computer can compare Meaning exists only in the brain but not in
the object with other objects also known to it the words nor in the paper on which the
similarly. It can add, subtract, compute words are written. Sometimes language is
functions of it, draw a picture of it, and so not even used to communicate information.
on. The computer can do almost anything E.g., a right signal flashing from a car is an
that a person can do with that object and indication to others that the car is about to
behave as though it "knows" the object make a right turn. The same piece of
without really knowing anything! Our use of information can be conveyed in many ways
the word representation is intended to and the means of communication always
convey that meaning is assigned to the uses a representation. The representation
computer’s SSHUs by the programmer. The may be in the form of words, sounds,
computer, whether digital or quantum, does electrical signals, and so on. A language is a
not know the meaning of its memory mapping of information into words
contents. Even when an AI program (symbols) which become sound energy when
produces a new intelligent formula, first it pronounced, and particles of matter when
produces a new pattern of SSHUs at the written on a paper, and become electrical
hardware level; the new hardware pattern is energy when transmitted over a telephone
then input to a machine level program which line. Yet information exists only in the brain
translates it into a pattern of numbers, the and is different from the language or signals
number pattern in its turn is input to a that are used for its communication just like
compiler or an interpreter and the output fed water is different from its container without
into a higher level language program, and so which it cannot be taken from place to
on, until finally after executing a few place. We are so accustomed to using
programs in succession, the formula appears material representations to store or
in English language or in some other communicate our thoughts (because we
written-and-spoken language, which the cannot help it), that we do not even
programmer has designed the computer to recognize the fact that information and its
output. The point to note is that both the mapping are different. Thus all
input to and output of each computer communication that we use and know in the
ISSN 1303 5150 www.neuroquantology.com
NeuroQuantology | June 2011 | Vol 9 | Issue 2 | Page 255-270 264
Hari SD., Mind and tachyons

world outside the brain is physical. Mental recognized only when it executes on a piece
communication exists only in the human of hardware by receiving some inputs and
brain and probably inside other living beings producing some outputs. It is not that
too. materialists (those who argue that
Bohm identified the mind field with consciousness is a state of matter) think that
superquantum potentials when he said that a a computer knows the meaning of its
quantum potential is mind-like. Bohm memory contents but they believe that the
(1989) says: biological matter in a living brain somehow
creates the meaning although any matter
“I would like to suggest then that the
outside the brain does not. However, they
activity, virtual or actual, in the energy
and in the soma is the meaning of the have yet to explain how biological matter
information, rather than to say that the creates meaning.
information affects an entity called the We propose that the brain is similar
mind which in turn operates somehow on to a computer in the sense that it has a
the matter of the body. So the physical component and some information;
relationship between active information but unlike the computer, the brain carries
and its meaning is basically similar to
that between form and content, which we
some “real information” along with a
know is a distinction without a real representation of that information stored in
difference or separation between the its physical memory. We propose that the
elements distinguished.” Again in an relation between the tachyon field and the
interview with Weber (1986) Bohm change it produces in the quantum potential
expressed; "It has been commonly of the system with which the tachyon
accepted, especially in the West, that the interacts is the relation between an
mental and physical are quite different algorithm and its representation stored in a
but somehow are related but the theory computer (digital or quantum). We agree
of their relationship has never been with Bohm and Hiley (1984) in the sense
satisfactorily developed. I suggest that
they are not actually separated; that the
that quantum potential is software-like5
mental and physical are two aspects, like because it causes change in the system
the form and content of something which dynamics. The quantum potential which is
is only separable in thought, not in software-like, and the holographic memory
reality." which is database-like, both provide
The last sentence shows that Bohm representations in the hardware-like brain
dismissed thought as not part of reality; for the “real information” or the “meaning”
when he said that both mind and matter are which consists of zero-energy tachyon fields.
two aspects of one reality. We differ from
Bohm and believe that the content is just as 4. The Biological Matter in a Living
real as the form that contains it. We believe Brain Creates Meaning Although Any
that the content has an identity of its own Matter outside the Brain Does Not
and different from all forms containing it In the case of a lifeless computer, we know
although content is generated in the brain by that AI (artificial intelligence) programs can
means of forms and although content cannot learn; they can even discover new formulas
be communicated without being separated and theories from the data input to them.
from the form. This is particularly because When a computer program learns, it actually
the same content can be communicated or creates in its memory, some new patterns of
stored using different forms. hardware units, which were not stored in the
Again considering the computer computer prior to the program execution.
analogy, if the computer is broken, we can The new information that the program is
still run the software on another computer said to have discovered is obtained only by
provided we have saved a copy of the the programmer’s assigning meaning to the
software on a storage device such as a
compact disc. The point is that information 5
The notion of active information clearly finds an analogue
contained in software exists independent of in the field of computer science, for example, in the fact
any computer hardware although the that a program contains not only passive memory but also
software existence and features can be instructions that actively guide the computer (Bohm and
Hiley, 1984).
ISSN 1303 5150 www.neuroquantology.com
NeuroQuantology | June 2011 | Vol 9 | Issue 2 | Page 255-270 265
Hari SD., Mind and tachyons

computer’s output consisting of numbers when absorbed by brain’s matter can trigger
and letters (a certain language) exocytosis. Let us now consider what the
corresponding to the newly created hardware brain’s action, rather in general, material
patterns. Meanings of words in any language particles’ action upon the tachyon-field
once again, are in the head of the would be without going into the physiology
programmer/user but not in the symbols of of the brain.
the language itself. So, the computer does We write a Lagrangian for the free
not create new “real information” but it does tachyon field governed by equation (2.1) as
create new patterns of hardware units to
Lfield = ∫ £d 3x = ∫ d 3x ⎡ ( ∂ t Ψ / c ) + ( ∇Ψ ) + m 2 Ψ 2 ⎤ / 2
2 2
which the programmer assigns meaning ⎣ ⎦
according to the original rules adopted for For the jth nonrelativistic particle interacting
information storage. An important point to with the field Ψ , the equation of motion can
note here is that to create even such a be derived from the Lagrangian:
hardware mapping of new information
though not new information itself, a certain L particle − j = ∫ d 3 x ⎡⎣ M j v j2 − ε j Ψ ⎤⎦ δ ( x − x j )
piece of software is required to be already
where Mj is the particle’s mass, vj is its
present and complete execution in the
velocity, and εj is a coupling constant. Then
computer; a machine cannot learn if it has
the Lagrangian for the system of particles
no software or cannot execute software; in
and the field together is
AI terms, such a machine cannot exhibit
“intelligence”. ⎧ ⎡( ∂ Ψ/c)2 + ( ∇Ψ)2 + m2Ψ2 ⎤ /2⎫
⎪⎣ t ⎦ ⎪
As to the living brain, it starts Lfield +∑Lparticle−j = ∫ d x ⎨ 3
⎬
⎪+ ⎡∑ Mj vj − εjΨ⎤⎦δ( x − xj ( t) ) ⎤ ⎪
2
(
learning from the moment it is born. Even if ⎩ ⎣ ⎦ ⎭
it does not learn new techniques of how to
respond to situations, it constantly interacts where the sum ∑ is over interacting particles
with the environment and stores the at positions xj j = 1,2,…. The action for the
experience and thereby creates new memory system of particles and the field together is
both physical and mental. Like Eccles we
think that the physical and mental memory S = ∫(L field + ∑ L particle − j ) dt
structures are not the same. The physical
The Euler-Lagrange equations derived by
memory may consist of Pribram’s
minimizing the above action S alter the field
holograms; but we do not think that the
equation (2.1) to:
“meaning” associated with a holographic
structure is identical with it. What brain (∂ t
2
)
/ c2 − Δ − m2 Ψ ( x, t ) =∑ εjδ(x − x j ( t )) (4.1)
scientists can observe today are structures in
the physical memory. Since the computer To find how the momentary interaction with
analogy suggests that new memory cannot be the particles at time t = t0 changes the zero-
created from hardware alone without some energy tachyon field, we may minimize
code already entered in it, probably, the S subject to the conditions: t = t0 and
physical body alone cannot create mind ∂ t Ψ = 0. Substituting these conditions in
when there is no mind already in it (no mind (4.1), we find that after the interaction, the
means no life! Interestingly, after failures of ZET field equation (2.3) changes to:
experiments to create tachyons in bubble
chambers Feinberg conjectured (1970) that (Δ )
+ m 2 Ψ ( x ) = ∑ ε j δ ( x − x j ( t 0 )) (4.2)
tachyons probably cannot be produced from Now, recall that the effect of the ZET,
matter although Feinberg never associated Φ m ( x ) = Φ ( x ) which satisfies equation (2.3),
mind with tachyons). However, again just
like in a computer, it is possible for the body on the Schrödinger equation of quantum
and the mind to interact with each other particles was introduced via the four-
producing more mind and creating physical potential {∂ ν φm ( x ,t )} , where
memories to represent the newly created φm ( x ,t ) = e imct Φm ( x ) . To find the effect vice
mind.
versa of the particles on φm ( x,t ) , we may
In section 2, we showed that a zero- apply similar analysis to the massless scalar
energy tachyon emitted by a mind field, wave equation:
ISSN 1303 5150 www.neuroquantology.com
NeuroQuantology | June 2011 | Vol 9 | Issue 2 | Page 255-270 266
Hari SD., Mind and tachyons

∂ ν ∂ ν φ( x, t) = 0 (4.3)
5. Libet’s Delay-and-Antedating
for which φm ( x,t ) is a solution. In this case, Paradox
we find that the field φ continues to satisfy Considering the explanation of a computer's
equation (4.3) even after interaction. Since knowing an object stated in Definition 1 in
Φ m ( x ) does change after interaction as seen section 3, a similar definition applies to a
human brain with the following difference:
from equation (4.2), it follows that after
interaction, the field φm ( x,t ) with a definite Definition 2. A brain knows an object if
and only if a representation of that object
value for m changes to a general linear together with the "real information" in the
superposition: form of ZETs regarding the object already
ф ( x , t ) = ∑ k e imkct Φ mk ( x ) dmk (4.4) exists in its memory. Hence we anticipate
that awareness of an object (which may be
If one defines the mass operator as −(i/c)∂t an experience) occurs when and only when
then the wavefunction φm ( x,t ) is the a physical record of that object and its
eigenfunction of this operator with the associated mental record consisting of
eigenvalue m, the mass of the ZET (strictly ZETs, are created in the brain.
speaking m0 = mћ / c is the ZET proper We will see that this definition of
mass). For different values of m these occurrence of consciousness in the brain (as
eigenfunctions represent free non- involving both a neural record and mental
interacting ZETs with definite masses. A record consisting of ZETs), is consistent with
linear superposition such as (4.4) is the quantum-physical explanation of Libet’s
associated with a tachyon with non-definite delay-and-antedating hypothesis, by Wolf
mass. Fourier analysis of (4.4) leads to the (1998) and adds further clarity to his
uncertainty relation between the spread of explanation.
ZET mass and spread of time given below: Libet's work on stimulus and
( Δmc )( Δt ) ≥ 1 (4.5) sensation and the theory of "human mind
antedating stimulus sensation" have been
In a momentary interaction the inequality subject to much debate. Libet (1979)
(4.5) implies that the spread Δm >> m and proposed the well-known hypothesis that a
suggests creation of new ZETs. subject’s experience of any peripheral
Clearly, a superposition of green’s functions: sensation appears to be referred backwards
∑ ε jG ( x − x j ( t 0 ) ) is a solution of equation in time approximately to the instant of
stimulation although the neural processes
(4.2) when G ( x − x j ( t 0 ) ) is a green’s function associated with the sensation take some
of the Helmholtz equation and satisfies; finite period of time to attain “neuronal
adequacy” which is required for awareness of
(Δ )
+ m 2 Ψ ( x ) = ε j δ( x − x j ( t 0 )) the sensation. Because no neural process
along with specified boundary conditions. was found (actually not found as yet) that
would account for such backwards in time
Expressing G ( x − x j ( t 0 ) ) for each j, as a
subjective referrals, Libet concluded that
superposition of functions Φmk ( x ) subjective referrals and corrections take
associated with eigenvalues mk, a solution of place at the mental level but not in the
equation would look like activities at neural levels. Dualist John
Eccles interpreted Libet's work as implying
Φ ΄ ( x ) = ∑ j ε j ∑ m k Φ m k ( x ) Φ m k ( x j ) / ( m 2 − mk 2 ) that a non-physical mind is the one
responsible for the backward step in time.
where x j = x j ( t 0 ) . The field Φ ΄ ( x ) is thus a
In support of Libet’s hypothesis, Wolf
superposition of ZETs of masses mk which (1998) offered a quantum-physical
are in general, different from m, the mass of explanation based on the so called two-time
the interacting field Φ m ( x ) . Thus, because of observable (TTO) quantum theory
interaction with material particles new zero- (Aharonov, 1990) and the transactional
energy tachyons may have been created. interpretation (TI) (Cramer, 1983) of
quantum mechanics. He proposed a model
ISSN 1303 5150 www.neuroquantology.com
NeuroQuantology | June 2011 | Vol 9 | Issue 2 | Page 255-270 267
Hari SD., Mind and tachyons

based on TTO and TI wherein two neural a quantum system is still an assumption but
events lead to backwards-through-time wave not an already proven scientific fact.
function collapse in the intervening space- Wolf (1998) talks about two
time interval. Wolf (1998) states: situations involving this correspondence
“A conscious experience occurs if and between mental and neural events. One is
only if two events occur. If one assumes exocytosis regarding which Eccles (Beck and
that consciousness arises with a single Eccles, 1992) postulated that a mental event,
event, paradoxes like the ones indicated namely volition, causes the collapse of the
by Libet’s experiments occur. Neuronal
wavefunctions of vesicles; Wolf seems to
adequacy and subjective experience are
not one and the same events. Neither agree. The other is awareness of the
are peripheral stimulation and peripheral sensation. In this case, Wolf
subjective experience one and the same assumes that awareness occurs along with
even though they seem to be. The truth the collapse of brain’s quantum
actually lies somewhere in-between. wavefunction. As regards exocytosis, we
Both the stimulation and neuronal showed in section 2 (Hari, 2008) that a zero-
adequacy (two events) are needed for energy tachyon can precisely play the role of
the apparent conscious (one event) volition. In the case of awareness of the
experience...” peripheral sensation, we will see below that
The last observation is not at all surprising besides a neural record whose creation is
when one considers the computer-like reflected by neuronal adequacy, a mental
behavior of the brain. A peripheral record consisting of ZETs and associated
stimulation is an input to the brain (a neural with the new neural record is also created in
computer) and the corresponding neuronal the brain thus satisfying Definition 2.
adequacy state is the one that contains a Wolf’s model explains temporal
neural record of the input. The computer anomalies in Libet’s experiments dealing
cannot know an input (in the sense described with sensory experiences generated by real
in section 3) unless it receives the input to sensory stimuli as well as imagined sensory
begin with, and then creates a record of the experiences generated by cortical stimuli.
input in its memory. But something else also New predictions of Wolf about the timings of
happens in the brain besides what happens occurrence of the experience have some
in a lifeless mechanical computer. In experimental evidence. In each of the
addition to receiving the input and creating a scenarios which he discussed, the TTOTI
physical (neural) record, the brain creates a model determines the time interval in which
mental record which we call conscious the quantum wavefunction collapses. TTOTI
experience and which does not seem to exist does not say that consciousness occurs along
in any lifeless computer, at least not yet. with the collapse. That is Wolf’s assumption.
Wolf (1998) states “quantum mechanical However, in each scenario, the time of
descriptions are relevant to neural occurrence of the experience in the Libet’s
behavior. Consequently the brain and experiment does fall within the time interval
nervous system can be treated as a quantum of the wavefunction collapse predicted by the
system. This shows that mental events do TTOTI model thus justifying Wolf’s
correspond with neural events through the hypothesis.
action of the collapse of the probability field
of the quantum wavefunction.” But does In our ZET model, the brain is a
collapse of the wavefunction of a quantum system consisting of some neurons and
system necessarily imply that some mental ZETs. In previous sections, we have
event occurs in the system along with the obtained the equations governing the action
collapse? Of course not. There are no of a ZET on neurons as well as the action of
mental events in many lifeless quantum neurons on a ZET. The former action is
systems that we currently know, e.g., no described by the Schrödinger equation:
consciousness occurs in the Wheeler’s ⎧ 1/2M ⎡( ћ /i) ∂ − ε A x ,t /c⎤2 ⎫
⎪( j)⎣ j j ( j ) ⎦ ⎪Ψ (5.1)
delayed choice machine, which is the model iћ∂t Ψ = ∑j ⎨ ⎬
for Wolf’s analysis. Hence this concept of ⎩⎪+εjU( x j ,t ) + V( x j ) ⎭⎪
“correspondence” in the case of the brain as

ISSN 1303 5150 www.neuroquantology.com

NeuroQuantology | June 2011 | Vol 9 | Issue 2 | Page 255-270 268
Hari SD., Mind and tachyons

where the suffix j describes quantities neuronal adequacy are simultaneous events
belonging to the jth particle and the and definition 2 is satisfied in this frame. So,
electromagnetic potentials U, A are given the ZETs, which are the mental contents of
by equation (2.4). Conversely, the action of the person experiencing the sensation, report
neurons on the ZET is described by equation the time of experience as the time of the
(4.4) and governed by the inequality: birth of the ZETs. So, the ZET hypothesis
agrees with both the Wolf hypothesis
( Δmc )( Δt ) ≥ 1
concerning the timing of conscious
If the wavefunction collapse is assumed to be experience and
instantaneous as Snyder’s hypothesis interpretation,
in the Copenhagen (Snyder, the abov
instantaneous as in the Copenhagen 1987) concerning the difference in
interpretation, the above inequality implies temporality of the experiential and
that ∆m>>m and hence creation of new neurophysiological reference frames; the
ZETs. In Bohm’s interpretation, there is no ZET hypothesis does not see a conflict
collapse but an effective collapse is arrived at between the Wolf and Snyder hypotheses.
by the system in a continuous manner. The
above Heisenberg inequality holds for 6. Why Tachyons and Further Work
arbitrarily small intervals around the time of The proposal that memory and thought in
the effective collapse. On the other hand, the the brain involve tachyons is based mainly
TI used by Wolf determines the timing of on some observed fundamental differences
collapse up to an interval. In this case, the in the behaviors of living beings and lifeless
inequality ∆m>>m holds if the energy m0c2 systems (Hari, 2002). These behavioral
of the tachyon, which is its energy in the differences include the following:
frame of reference fixed in it, is sufficiently
The first observation is well-known
small. If so, the effect of collapse of the
and discussed by Searle (1980) and may be
wavefunction Ψ in (5.1) is to create new
briefly stated as “Information in a living
ZETs. Since in TI, the collapse depends
brain is different from any of its
upon the information pertaining to the initial
representations used for its storage or
and final states before and after the collapse,
communication”. Whenever we refer to
and the information pertaining to the
“information” in physical sciences, it consist
stimulus that caused the collapse, the ZETs
some form of matter or material energy and
created by the collapse also depend upon all
is merely a representation of some “real
that information. Thus experience of the
information” stored in a living brain. The
peripheral sensation occurs because the
meaning exists only in the brain and not in
relevant ZETs are created.
any representation of it outside the brain. It
Recalling the role of a ZET in is possible that the meaning which is known
exocytosis, where the proper mass of the ZET to be carried nonlocally by systems of
is required to be sufficiently small (Hari, neurons may consist of tachyons which have
2008) for the ZET to have a non-zero imaginary masses and nonlocal and thus
gradient across the whole dendron, it different from the ordinary matter and
appears that tachyons (and therefore mind) energy obtained from matter.
need only very small energies to work with
Another observation is that our
the brain.
actions almost always have a desire, urge,
In the laboratory frame of reference, purpose, motive, etc. as their basis. We act in
awareness of the sensory stimulus is the present not only because what we are at
reported to the experimenter even before the present or what we were in the past but also
required neuronal adequacy is observed and because what or where we want to be in the
that is the paradox. Wolf’s resolution is that future. So, our reasoning is inductive as well
in this frame, the brain’s wavefunction as deductive. The causality associated with
collapse indeed occurs earlier than neuronal inductive reasoning is called circular
adequacy. What we showed above is that causality. If desires, motives, etc consist of
ZETs which carry the collapse information tachyons, then it would be possible for an
are also created when the collapse occurs. action in the present to have a future state as
Now, in the frame of reference of any created a cause. Among the several papers written on
ZET, the birth of the ZETs and attainment of causality of or its violation by tachyons, the

ISSN 1303 5150 www.neuroquantology.com

NeuroQuantology | June 2011 | Vol 9 | Issue 2 | Page 255-270 269
Hari SD., Mind and tachyons

paper “Causality and Tachyons in matter needs to be developed in the context

Relativity” written by Caldirola and Recami of the neuron environment of the brain. One
(1980) is particularly interesting in the possible method of experimental detection of
present context. In the section with title ‘Can tachyons in a brain would be to verify the
a Tachyonic Observer Inform Us about Our existence of a dispersion relation of the form
Future?’ of this paper, the authors conclude ω2/c2 = k2 − m2 for electromagnetic fields of
that a tachyonic observer can convey to an the brain. Since at present, EEG is the
ordinary observer the effects on a future primary means by which electromagnetic
event E of the anti-signals (negative energy activities in the brain are measured and their
signals) sent by himself to E so as to features inferred, the well known alpha, beta,
physically influence E. To me, this seems to theta and delta rhythms offer suitable area of
be how we think when we try to achieve a investigation. An explanation of the
goal whatever it may be; we first think about occurrence of readiness potential before the
the effects on the future event of present occurrence of awareness of volition, using
actions and then act. To me, the tachyonic the tachyon theory would also be a
observer seems to be our mind. worthwhile attempt in the study of
Clearly, the scope of further work is consciousness.
vast. A theory of tachyon interaction with

ISSN 1303 5150 www.neuroquantology.com

 NeuroQuantology | June 2011 | Vol 9 | Issue 2 | Page 255-270 270
Hari SD., Mind and tachyons

References Holland PR. The Quantum Theory of Motion.

Aharonov Y and Vaidman L. Properties of a quantum Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1993.
system during the time interval between two Libet B. et al. Subjective referral of the timing for a
measurements. Physical Review 1990; A, 41: 11. conscious sensory experience. Brain 1979; 102-193.
Beck Friedrich and Eccles John C. Quantum aspects of Libet B. Neurophysiology of Consciousness. Boston
brain activity and the role of consciousness. Proc Birkhauser 1993.
Nadl Acad Sci USA 1992; 89: 11357-11361. Libet B. A testable field theory of mind brain
Beck F. Can quantum processes control synaptic interaction. J Consciousness Studies 1994; 1:119-
emission? Int J Neural System 1996; 7: 343-53. 126.
Berndl K, Daumer M, D¨urr D, Goldstein S, and Libet B. Conscious Mind as a Field. J theor Biol 1996;
Zangh`I N. A Survey on Bohmian Mechanics.arXiv: 178: 223-224.
quant-ph/9504010 Margenau H. The Miracle of Existence. Oxbow Press
Bittner E. Quantum tunneling dynamics using Woodbridge 1984.
hydrodynamic trajectories, J. Chem. Pribram Karl H. Consciousness Reassessed. Mind &
Phys. 112, 9703-9710 (2000). Matter 2004; 2(1): 7–35.
Bohm D. A new theory of the relationship of mind and Pribram Karl H. An instantiation of Eccles brain/mind
matter, Philosophical psychology, 1990; 3 (2): 271- dualism and beyond. 2000.
286. http://www.paricenter.com/library/papers/pribra
Bohm D. Meaning and information. In The Search for m03.php
Meaning. The New Spirit in Science and Recami E. Classical tachyons and possible applications.
Philosophy. ed. Pylkkanen P. Thorsons Publishing Revista Del Nuovo Cimento 1986; 9(6): 43.
Group Wellingborough; 1989; 43–62. Sarfatti J. What is back-reaction? QUANTUM-D list
Bohm D and Hiley BJ. Measurement Understood from Rhett Savage February 19th 1996.
Through the Quantum Potential Approach, Sarfatti J. Quantum Back Action. 1996. Available from:
foundations of Physics 1984; 14(3): 255-274. http://www.qedcorp.com/pcr/pcr/qmback.html
Bohm D and Hiley BJ. Undivided Universe. Routledge Searle JR. Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral
London & New York; 1993. and Brain Sciences 1980; 3: 417-57
Caldirola P and Recami E. Causality and Tachyons in Shay D and Miller KL. Propagation of Tachyon Waves.
Relativity. Italian Studies in the Philosophy of Tachyons, Monopoles, and Related Topics. Ed. E.
Science. D. Reidel Publishing Company; 1980; 249- Recami North-Holland, Amsterdam 1978;189.
298. Shay D and Miller KL. Causal and Non-causal
Cramer JG. Generalized absorber theory and the Propagation of Both Tardyon and Tachyon Wave
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox.Physical Review Functions. Nuovo Cimento 1978; 38A: 490.
1983; D 22: 166. Snyder DM. Letter to the editor: On the time of a
Durr D, Goldstein S, Tumulka R, and Zanghi N. conscious peripheral sensation. J Theo Biol 1987;
Bohmian Mechanics. Compendium of Quantum 130-253.Stapp Henry P. Mindful Universe:
Physics, edited by F. Weinert, K. Hentschel, and D. Quantum mechanics and the Participating
Greenberger Springer-Verlag 2009. Observer. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York,
Eccles JC. A Unitary Hypothesis of Mind--Brain 2007.Stapp Henry P. The Hard Problem: A
Interaction in the Cerebral Cortex. Proc R Soc Lond Quantum Approach. arXiv:quant-ph/9505023v2
B 1990; 240: 433-45.Evelyn Elsaesser Valarino. 1995.
The superluminal hypothesis in The other side of Sudarshan ECG. The Nature of Faster-Than-Light
life translated by Michelle Herzig Escobar. Plenum Particles and Their Interactions. Arkiv fur Fysik
Press New York; 1997; 193-228. 1969; 39: 40.
Feinberg G. Possibility of Faster Than Light Particles. Sudarshan ECG. The Theory of Particles Traveling
Phys Rev 1967; 159: 1089-1105. Faster than Light I. Symposia on Theoretical
Feinberg G. Particles that go Faster than Light. Physics and Mathematics 10 A. Ramakrishnan (ed.)
Scientific American, February 1970; 69-77 Plenum Press New York 1970.
Hari S. Eccles’s Psychons could be zero-energy Vishnubhatla S. Information in a Brain is due to
tachyons. NeuroQuantology, June 2008; 6 (2): 152- Tachyon Waves. Proc IEEE SMC 1985; 969.
160. Weber Renee. Dialogues with Scientists and Sages.
Hari S. The Difference between the Living and the Routledge and Kegan Paul 1986; 106.
Lifeless. Wolf FA. Is the Mind of God Found in Quantum Field
http://primordality.com/consciousness.htm#living Theory? Available from:
2002. http://www.fredalanwolf.com/myarticles/Quantu
Hiley BJ and Pylkk¨anen P. Can Mind Affect Matter m%20Field%20Theory.pdf June 2nd 2008; 1-19.
Via Active Information? Mind & Matter 2005; 3(2): Wolf FA. The Timing of Conscious Experience. Journal
7–27 of Scientific Exploration 1998; 12(4): 511-542.

ISSN 1303 5150 www.neuroquantology.com

View publication stats