sign in sign up
<<
Home , Consciousness

NeuroQuantology | June 2011 | Vol 9| Issue 2| Page 313-321 313 Limar IV., Carl G. Jung’s and

Opinion and Perspectives

Carl G. Jung’s Synchronicity and Quantum Entanglement: Schrödinger’s Cat ‘Wanders’ Between Chromosomes

Igor V. Limar Abstract One of the most prospective directions of study of C.G. Jung’s synchronicity is reviewed considering the latest achievements of modern . The is focused mainly on the quantum entanglement and related phenomena – quantum coherence and quantum superposition. It is shown that the quantum non-locality capable of solving the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox represents one of the most adequate physical mechanisms in terms of conformity with the Jung’s synchronicity hypothesis. An attempt is made on psychophysiological substantiation of synchronicity within the context of molecular . An original is proposed, stating that biological molecules involved in cell division during mitosis and meiosis, particularly DNA may be considered material carriers of consciousness. This assumption may be formulated on the basis of phenomenology of Jung’s analytical .

Key Words: consciousness, synchronicity, quantum entanglement, nucleic acids, mitosis, meiosis NeuroQuantology 2011; 2: 313-321

Problem formulation and related ‘manifestations of synchronicity’ caused to studies1 certain extent skeptical by a number To be sure, the concept of synchronicity of researchers. Considering criticism of represents an integral part of analytical Jung’s theory of synchronicity by his psychology. believed, that opponents, it should be, nevertheless, synchronicity is closely related to numerous admitted that in doing his research the manifestations of psychic of the , founder of was guided, both normal and affected by pathology. in particular, by principles of contemporary Determining the of the phenomenon theoretical physics. For instance, it is well of synchronicity may become important for known that Jung has developed the concept psychotherapeutic practice, particularly for of synchronicity in close collaboration with difficult clinical cases which today cannot be . Thus, the Swiss psychologist subjected to psychological correction using has always made sure that the data gathered methods of classical psychiatry. At the same from his clinical observations conforms to , we know that exotic nature of the principles of natural science. Still, specific mechanisms which, Corresponding author: Igor V. Limar probably, lay at the core of synchronicity Address: Institute of Innovative and Postgraduate Education (IIPE). phenomena became a of discussion Department of computer science and informational technologies, only in the early 1980s thanks to the Dvoryanskaya str., 2, Odessa, 65026, Ukraine Phone: +38 048 725 3687 in experimental studies of certain Fax: +38 048 711 6533 of quantum physics. In one of the e-mail: [email protected] relatively early papers devoted to this Received Dec 22, 2010. Revised Feb 19, 2011. Accepted Feb 22, 2011. (Keutzer, 1982), the synchronicity ISSN 1303 5150 www.neuroquantology.com

NeuroQuantology | June 2011 | Vol 9| Issue 2| Page 313-321 314 Limar IV., Carl G. Jung’s Synchronicity and Quantum Entanglement phenomenon was juxtaposed with the other aspects of Jung’s theory without ‘morphic resonance’ hypothesis suggested by linking this phenomenon directly to the Rupert Sheldrake. In turn, the Sheldrake’s synchronicity phenomenon (Blutner and theory is interpreted in the above study in Hochnadel, 2010; Conte et al., 2010). the context of quantum non-locality, a Nevertheless, even though the consequence of solution of the so-called probable role of quantum non-locality in Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. In his realization of synchronicity phenomena is later papers (Keutzer, 1984a; b), this author clearly emphasized in the above papers, the clearly associates quantum non-locality with question of what physiological mechanism Jung’s synchronicity. Afterwards, other might be responsible for the of researchers (Mansfield and Spiegelman, quantum entanglement between different 1989) have reviewed non-local quantum bodies has not been considered so correlations, the Schrodinger’s cat paradox, far. The only exceptions in this respect are, and experiments verifying Bell’s inequalities perhaps, the studies by Michael Hyland, who in relation to the synchronicity phenomenon. also that the synchronicity The same researchers also reviewed the phenomenon is caused by quantum principle of superposition within the context entanglement (Hyland, 2004a). The criterion of attempts to explain the synchronicity enabling to consider that the mentioned phenomenon (Mansfield and Spiegelman, corresponding physiological mechanism has 1991). Furthermore, Mansfield, reviewing been suggested is a description of necessary Jung’s theory, has analyzed, among other and sufficient conditions for occurrence of aspects, the role of Bell’s inequalities per se quantum entanglement between biological in respect to the problems of analytical molecules of different people. Broadly psychology (Mansfield, 1991). A similar speaking, these molecules may not be paper (Germine, 1991) also dealing with the interconnected by quantum entanglement synchronicity phenomenon, the concept of prior to mutual interaction. As quantum quantum non-locality, and the Einstein- entanglement between biological molecules Podolsky-Rosen and Schrodinger’s cat of different people may not exist per se, in paradoxes, is devoted to determination of the the absence of once occurred special physical nature of consciousness. Study of relation interaction, it is only this criterion that can between quantum non-locality and Jung’s be valid. We cannot generally assume that synchronicity, and the concerning available quantum entanglement between Bell’s inequalities continued in later papers molecules of different people is taken for (Mansfield and Spiegelman, 1996). granted. In one of his papers (Hyland, Publications discussing, in one way or 2004b), Hyland made an assumption that another, the synchronicity phenomenon in quantum entanglement may exist both relation to the quantum entanglement between cells of the same and phenomenon have appeared during the past between different subjects. Apparently, this decade (Walach, 1999; Walach and Römer, author came very close to the solution of this 2000; Duch, 2002; Milgrom, 2002; Primas, problem in his another paper (Hyland, 2003; Stillfried and Walach, 2006; 2003a), where he not only assumes existence Teodorani, 2006). The latest papers in this of quantum entanglement at DNA level sphere of study contain quite detailed within the same body, but also describes research (Lucadou et al., 2007; Carminati possible role of quantum entanglement in and Martin, 2008; Martin et al., 2009; meiosis processes. It is quite possible that all Martin et al., 2010). that needs to be done is just one little step At the same time, it should be noted further – to expand this author’s that attempts to explain the synchronicity of existence of quantum entanglement at phenomenon by considering other physical DNA level within the same body and its role mechanisms not directly related to quantum in morphogenesis to the hypothesis of non-locality (Zabrizkie, 1995) are quite existence of quantum entanglement between scarce. DNAs of different bodies. As far as meiosis It should also be mentioned that processes are concerned, Hyland regards the some authors look at the quantum role of quantum entanglement exclusively as entanglement phenomenon in regard to regulating the cell division. The fact that

ISSN 1303 5150 www.neuroquantology.com

NeuroQuantology | June 2011 | Vol 9| Issue 2| Page 313-321 315 Limar IV., Carl G. Jung’s Synchronicity and Quantum Entanglement meiosis may represent a mechanism ‘functional’ (comparing to other physical ensuring quantum entanglement between mechanisms) instrument as far as attempts different bodies was left out by this author. to interpret Jung’s synchronicity are In the meantime, solution of the problem of concerned. Yet, it still remains unclear how existence of non-local quantum correlations exactly the quantum entanglement may exist between different bodies, in particular, at the level of material carrier of synchronicity phenomena, could be right consciousness, i.e. , and how the there. The answer to this question will be quantum entanglement may ensure non- proposed in this paper below. local correlations between different subjects which make synchronicity possible. Solution Study goal and hypothesis of this problem is the goal of the study this Synchronicity phenomena have been studied paper is devoted for. for quite a while and not just by Jung but (a Let’s assume that correlation of much lesser-known fact) by , mental processes in different people not the founder of . His several exchanging any among papers corroborate this fact (Freud, 1922; themselves, i.e. synchronicity, is caused by 1953a; 1953b). Naturally, the famous non-local quantum correlations (quantum Austrian psychiatrist used somewhat entanglement) between certain parts of these different terminology, but in the essence, he people’s brain (Persinger et al., 2008). At studied phenomena of the same nature. A this point, it needs to be noted that we can’t telling fact: in the same period, scientific talk about existence of quantum community gained of the entanglement as such between macroscopic nature of quantum phenomena which later objects. The ‘quantum entanglement’ term is were associated with the synchronicity applicable exclusively to the objects of phenomenon. We are talking about the so- microworld, particularly at submolecular called Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, level: molecular orbitals (electron shells) of study of which helped postulate existence of molecules, chromophore parts, etc. quantum non-locality and quantum Therefore, it is, for example, correct to say entanglement, closely related to non-local ‘quantum entanglement between neuron quantum correlations. structures at submolecular level’ instead of As we know, the quantum ‘quantum entanglement between nerve cells’, entanglement means a quantum-mechanical or make the following formulation: ‘quantum phenomenon in which quantum state of two entanglement between electron shells of or more objects should be described in neuron molecules of different people’ instead interrelation with each other, even if of saying ‘quantum entanglement between objects are spaced apart. As a different people’. Also, as of today, direct result, correlations appear between physical observation of effects involving quantum properties of these objects. entanglement at the level of macroscopic The quantum entanglement objects is highly questionable. Nevertheless, phenomenon is also viewed at in relation to it should be noted in this respect that by this such notions as quantum coherence and time, certain attempts were made at quantum superposition. The principle of experimental observation of these superposition in quantum physics will be phenomena as part of the quantum discussed further in connection with the superposition studies (Gevaux, 2010; Schrodinger’s cat paradox. O’Connell et al., 2010). And finally, it is Nevertheless, this branch of important to emphasize that quantum theoretical physics began experiencing rapid entanglement cannot directly represent a development only during the past few mechanism of communicating information decades. It can be explained, first of all, by per se. Quantum entanglement may serve emerging possibilities for experimental only as an instrument of ensuring correlation verification of violation of the so-called Bell’s of certain physical quantities. In this case, inequalities. It is also important to note that correlation may be implemented at quantum entanglement, as follows from indefinitely large distances without definition and the nature of this limitation on speed imposed by the special phenomenon, represents the most theory of relativity.

ISSN 1303 5150 www.neuroquantology.com

NeuroQuantology | June 2011 | Vol 9| Issue 2| Page 313-321 316 Limar IV., Carl G. Jung’s Synchronicity and Quantum Entanglement

Currently, existence of quantum Ogryzko, 2008; Cooper, 2009a; b). Analysis coherence and quantum entanglement in of development trends in this area of study biological molecules is intensively studied allows to assume that this direction is very and is considered proved at experimental promising (Curtus and Hurtak, 2004; level (Gilmore and McKenzie, 2005; Plenio Ananthaswamy, 2010). It has been, for and Huelga, 2008; Thorwart et al., 2009; example, suggested that quantum effects Hossein-Nejad and Scholes, 2010; Sarovar et may be responsible for morphogenesis al., 2010). Many researchers believe that processes (Hyland, 2003b), and represent, in quite specific problems in living a way, a link between genotype and may be solved using quantum entanglement phenotype (Rosen, 1996). Therefore, it is (Cai et al., 2010). However, when studying possible that DNAs of different cells within the synchronicity phenomenon it is the same may be connected by important to find out how quantum quantum entanglement as a result of division entanglement between biological structures of cell during mitosis. On the other hand, it of different organisms may occur. In this is also fair to assume that quantum respect, let’s assume that quantum entanglement between DNAs of different entanglement between biological molecules cells may occur during meiosis, when may occur as a result of ‘coherent resonance gametes are forming. This situation may take transfer’ (Jang et al., 2008; Olaya- place, for example, during homologous Castro et al., 2008; Collini and Sholes 2009; genetic recombination – crossing-over. It Nazir 2009; Kekovic et al., 2010; Nalbach et means that quantum entanglement may exist al., 2010; Sholes 2010). Some authors between cell structures of different describe possibility of quantum organisms as well. There is, however, one entanglement occurring during electrostatic important circumstance worth noting: (Coulomb) interaction (Mishima et al., theoretically, quantum entanglement 2004). Consequently, one may also assume between DNAs of brain cells may occur that quantum entanglement between parts of exclusively during embryogenesis. The biological molecules occurs as a result of the explanation is as follows: as we know, nerve above interaction. Another physical cells mitotic division only during mechanism by of which quantum prenatal period. During postnatal period, entanglement can arise is the Fermi neurons do not divide. Small percentage of resonance (Peng and Hou, 2009; Peng and neural stem cells may be disregarded. As of Hou, 2010; Hou et al., 2010). However, it is today, several papers have been already obvious that mere presence of different devoted to the matters concerning quantum people close to each other hardly offers a entanglement at the level of central nervous sufficient condition for occurrence of system cells (Pereira, 2007; Pereira and quantum entanglement between any Furlan, 2009; 2010). At the same time, it biological structures of their bodies. Also, should be noted that quantum entanglement synchronicity phenomena (correlation of may exist not only between nuclear DNAs of mental processes in different subjects) may, different cells. Any cellular structures generally speaking, be observed even if these interacting both before and during mitosis people have never communicated with each and meiosis processes, and afterwards, after other. Therefore, it seems prudent to put cells have divided, ending up in different forth a hypothesis, whereby quantum cells, may potentially represent elements entanglement occurs, and is subsequently which cause existence of quantum maintained, at the level of genetic material. entanglement between molecules of different In addition to other studies of cells (Hameroff, 2004; Tulub, 2004). It is quantum coherence and quantum hardly possible to describe existence of entanglement in biological molecules, quantum entanglement between biological possibility of these phenomena existing in molecules of different organisms without nucleic acids, particularly in DNA, was also taking into account mitosis and meiosis intensively studied in recent years (Ogryzko processes. It is so because in order that 1997; McFaden and Al-Khalili, 1999; quantum entanglement does occur between Bieberich 2000; Schemp, 2003; Sirakoulis et the objects of the microworld, such objects al., 2004; Tulub and Stefanov, 2007; should have interacted. Generally speaking,

ISSN 1303 5150 www.neuroquantology.com

NeuroQuantology | June 2011 | Vol 9| Issue 2| Page 313-321 317 Limar IV., Carl G. Jung’s Synchronicity and Quantum Entanglement in case no interaction took place, the objects DNA molecules of relatively large groups of of the microworld will not be related with people cannot be ruled out. quantum entanglement. Some particular Considering the aforementioned cases of quantum entanglement among hypothesis, we can assume that ‘material fermions make an exception to this rule carriers of consciousness’ include, in (Zhou, 2000; Vedral, 2003; Oh and Kim, particular, molecular orbitals (electron 2004; Clark et al., 2005; Vertesi, 2007; Jie shells) of molecules, biologically active and -Qun, 2008; Habibian et al., 2010). during meiosis and mitosis. This conclusion However, for these rare instances it is is helped by phenomenology of analytical characteristic to adhere to a series of specific psychology, namely the synchronicity conditions. At this stage of science phenomenon. development it is premature to suggest that An assumption that the molecules such conditions exist as applied to neurones participating in meiosis can play a role of of several different people. Furthermore, tangible media of consciousness, apart of the another important question requires our other biological molecules, by no means attention. It concerns not the quantum contradicts our formed presentation that the entanglement occurrence mechanism, but human is ‘localized’ in the brain. An the problem of its long-term preservation. absence of such contradiction is conditional We are talking about the so-called on the circumstance that the molecules decoherence, a process which involves displaying biological activity during meiosis destruction of quantum coherence under are viewed merely as an ‘intermediate’ link impact of electromagnetic fields and other when quantum entanglement is formed factors. Decoherence involves between brain cell molecules of various transformation of states characterized by people. The molecules participating in a cell quantum superposition (the so-called ‘pure’ division during meiosis may appear as states) into states where quantum ‘intermediaries’ while the quantum phenomena cannot be observed (‘mixed’ entanglement is formed between certain states). Nevertheless, recently this problem brain cell molecules of a with the has also been tackled at with increasing same molecules of the brain cells belonging success (Shabani and Lidar, 2005; Manfredi to another person. In its turn, biological and Hervieux, 2006; Grace et al., 2007), molecules used during mitosis can be similar particularly in terms of understanding the ‘intermediaries’ in the course of quantum processes occurring in DNA (Ogryzko, 2008; entanglement formation. However, the Cooper, 2009a; 2009b). And finally, we still molecules used during mitosis can ensure a have to find out how quantum entanglement formation of quantum entanglement not may occur between cellular structures of between molecules of various people but quite large number of subjects, because between the cell molecules of one human during meiosis, genetic materials may be organism. Specifically, it can occur between transferred to descendants only. A the brain cell molecules and the molecules hypothesis may come to rescue, whereby all which are active when forming gametes of humans originated from the same center in one and the same person. As it has already Africa approximately 80-200 thousand years been noted, quantum entanglement between ago – ‘recent single-origin hypothesis’ the molecules of brain neurons of an (Batzer et al., 1994; Armour et al., 1996; Liu organism may, theoretically, arise during et al., 2006; Pritchard et al., 1996). Not embryogenesis exclusively. Quantum extending, surely, the assumption of entanglement between the brain cell existence of quantum entanglement onto the molecules and the molecules of other cells scale of genome of all people, one may, within one and the same organism may also nevertheless, assume that certain population arise exclusively in the process of prenatal groups bear in their genetic material DNA development. Among other things, it also parts inherited from prehistoric men, which refers to quantum entanglement arising are common to these groups (Goldstein et between the brain cell molecules and the cell al., 1995; Jorde et al., 1995; Nei and molecules of other organs wherein meiosis Takezaki, 1996; Hey, 1997). Therefore, takes place within the frame of one existence of quantum entanglement between organism. Still, quantum entanglement

ISSN 1303 5150 www.neuroquantology.com

NeuroQuantology | June 2011 | Vol 9| Issue 2| Page 313-321 318 Limar IV., Carl G. Jung’s Synchronicity and Quantum Entanglement between the cell molecules of the organs DNA. At the same time, Sheldrake did not wherein meiosis within the frame of one specify what physical mechanism precisely organism takes place may occur not only may be responsible for this correlation. And during embryogenesis but also in the only some other authors have reviewed the postnatal period. Sheldrake’s theory in light of quantum non- Again, an assumption that genetic locality (Keutzer, 1982; Resconi and material can be a tangible medium of Nikravesh, 2008). Also, key provisions of consciousness has been contemplated so far analytical psychology were viewed at in by a number of researchers (Dennis 2010; connection with ’s theory of Taric et al., 2010) and is not viewed now as holomovement and Karl Pribram’s something remarkable. Recently there also holographic brain theory (Zinkin, 1987). appear papers (Vaas, 1999; Molyneux, 2010) Besides Jung, the assumption that mental which allow of a rather skeptical attitude to a processes somehow correlate with certain stereotyped notion that the nature of a processes occurring beyond human psyche is conditioned by electric was put forth at the time by John Eccles, transfer of signal in the brain. laureate of the 1963 Nobel Prize in In this context it should be pointed Physiology (Popper and Eccles, 1977) jointly out that to quantum effects when with Wilder Penfield (Penfield, 1978). trying to explain the nature of consciousness The hypothesis outlined in this article and, specifically, orientation to quantum may be viewed at a different angle. As we entanglement phenomenon (including at the know, phenomena which quantum genetic material level) seems more than mechanics deals with in no way fit the justified. To corroborate this thesis let us perception of surrounding world which we consider modern information technologies. carry in everyday life. This is also true about Complexity of contemporary the principle of superposition in quantum supercomputers and computer networks, a theory, a phenomenon when, for example, an number of electronic links therein and the of microworld may be ‘located’ in volume of transferred information may be several points of Hilbert currently comparable with certain similar ‘simultaneously’ (Garraway and Knight, indices applicable to describe human brain 1994; Haroche et al., 1997; Deléglise et al., properties. However, as yet nobody saw 2008). Back in his time, one of the founders (generally, it is hard to imagine that anybody of quantum theory Erwin Schrödinger could have observed such a thing) any showed that as a result of this principle, one technical device possessing consciousness can model a situation when a living creature, which operating principle was based upon a for example a cat, may be both ‘alive’ and transfer of electronic signals. It refers, inter ‘dead’ at the same time. However strange alia, to technical devices developed within this experiment might seem to us, at the framework of artificial this time practical experiments aimed at studies. Therefore, it appears highly doubtful realization of quantum superposition at that the brain of a newborn, able to transfer macroscopic level are already underway electric pulses only, is an adequate medium (Gevaux, 2010; O’Connell et al., 2010). One of consciousness and can provide for a of the consequences of existence of quantum development of the personality possessing entanglement between chromosomes of intelligence. It seems so that the brain brain neurons in different people may be the molecules of an individual are to be linked, fact that consciousness is not ‘localized’ in via a genetic material and by means of brain of an individual but, in the essence, quantum entanglement, with genetic ‘simultaneously’ ‘belongs’ to a group of material (and molecules at the level of the people. This point of view is rather closer to central nervous system) of a great number of Arnold Mindell’s transpersonal other people. interpretation (Mindell, 2000; 2004) than, Characteristically enough, a famous in fact, to the theory of British biologist Rupert Sheldrake has come unconscious. up with a similar hypothesis at his time, assuming that correlation of mental Conclusions and prospects of this processes in different people is caused by study

ISSN 1303 5150 www.neuroquantology.com

NeuroQuantology | June 2011 | Vol 9| Issue 2| Page 313-321 319 Limar IV., Carl G. Jung’s Synchronicity and Quantum Entanglement

Progress in various areas of modern natural not ruling out their disproof as well. In science allows hoping that Carl Jung’s author’s opinion, the hypothesis outlined in concept of synchronicity will, after all, this article implies verification of currently receive scientific explanation. Surely, one available data to explain the nature of shouldn’t get carried away on a of synchronicity phenomenon. euphoria, ecstatically accepting ‘trendy’ applications of the quantum entanglement phenomenon. Scientific practice implies experimental confirmation of hypotheses,

References classical cavity states with snapshots of their Ananthaswamy A. Quantum entanglement shapes decoherence. Nature 2008; 455: 510-514. life’s blueprint. New Scientist 2010; 17: 9-9. Denis KL. Quantum Consciousness: Reconciling Armour JA, Anttinen T, May CA, Vega EE, Sajantila A, Science and Toward Our Evolutionary Kidd JR, Kidd KK, Bertranpetit J, Pääbo S and Future(s). Word Futures 2010; 66: 511-524. Jeffreys AJ. Minisatellite diversity supports a Duch W. Synchronicity, , and matter. The recent African origin for modern humans. Nature International Journal of Transpersonal Studies Genetics 1996; 13: 154-160. 2002; 21: 153-168. Batzer MA, Stoneking M, Alegria-Hartman M, Bazan Freud S. and telepathy. International Journal H, Kass, DH, Shaikh TH, Novick GE, Ioannou PA, of Psycho-Analysis 1922; 3: 283-305. Scheer WD, Herrera RJ and Deininger PL. African Freud S. ‘Psychoanalysis and telepathy’. In origin of human-specific polymorphic Alu Psychoanalysis and the Occult, Edited by George insertions. Proceedings of the National Academy Devereux. New York: International Universities of 1994; 91: 12288-12292. Press, Inc., 56-68, 1953a. Bieberich E. Probing quantum coherence in a Freud S. Lecture 30 ‘Dreams and occultism’ of biological system by means of DNA amplification. ‘Introduction Into Psychoanalysis: Lectures’. In Biosystems 2000; 57: 109-124. Psychoanalysis and the Occult, Edited by George Blutner R and Hochnadel E. Two qubits for C.G. Devereux. New York: International Universities Jung’s theory of personality. Cognitive Systems Press, Inc., 91-109, 1953b. Research 2010; 11: 243-259. Garraway BM and Knight PL. of quantum Cai J, Guerreschi GG and Briegel HJ. Quantum superposition in open environments: Quantum control and entanglement in a chemical compass. trajectories, jumps, and localization in phase Physical Review Letters 2010; 104: 220502. space. Physical Review A 1994; 50: 2548-2563. Carminati GG and Martin F. and Germine M. Consciousness and synchronicity. psyche. Physics of Elementary and Medical Hypotheses 1991; 36: 277-283. Atomic Nuclei 2008; 39: 560-577. Gevaux D. At the limit, it last. Nature Physics 2010; 6: Clark SR, Alves CM and Jaksch D. Efficient 243-243. generation of graph states for quantum Gilmore J and McKenzie RH. Spin boson models for computation. New Journal of Physics 2005; 7:124. quantum decoherence of electronic excitations of Collini E and Sholes GD. Coherent intrachain energy biomolecules and quantum dots in a solvent. migration in a conjugated polymer at room Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 2005; 17: temperature. Science 2009; 323: 369-373. 1735. Conte E, Todarello O, Laterza V, Khrennikov AY, Goldstein DB, Linares AR, Cavalli-Sforza LL and Mendolicchio L and Federici A. A preliminary Feldman MW. Genetic absolute dating based on experimental verification of violation of Bell microsatellites and the origin of modern humans. inequality in a quantum model of Jung theory of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences personality formulated with Clifford algebra. 1995; 92: 6723-6727. Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research Grace M, Brif C, Rabitz H, Walmslay IA, Kosut RL and 2010; 1: 831-849. Lidar DA. Optimal control of quantum gates and Cooper WG. Evidence for transcriptase quantum suppression of decoherence in a system of processing implies entanglement and decoherence interacting two-level particles. Journal of Physics of superposition proton states. Biosystems 2009a; B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 2007; 97: 73-89. 40: S103. Cooper WG. Necessity of quantum coherence to Habibian H, Clark JW, Behbood N and Hingerl K. account for the spectrum of time-dependent Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger and W mutations exhibited by bacteriophage T4. entanglement witnesses for the noninteracting Biochemical Genetics 2009b; 47: 892-910. Fermi gas. Physical Review A 2010; 81:032302. Curtus BD and Hurtak JJ. Consciousness and Hameroff SR. A new theory of the origin of cancer: quantum : uncovering the quantum coherent entanglement, centrioles, foundation for a of light. Journal of mitosis, and differentiation. Biosystems 2004; 77: Alternative and Complimentary Medicine 2004; 119-136. 10: 27-39. Haroche S, Brune M. and Raimond JM. Experiments Deléglise S, Dotsenko I, Sayrin C, Bernu J, Brune M, with single atoms in a cabity: entanglement, Raimond J and Haroche S. Reconstruction of non- Schrödinger's cats and decoherence. Philosophical

ISSN 1303 5150 www.neuroquantology.com

NeuroQuantology | June 2011 | Vol 9| Issue 2| Page 313-321 320 Limar IV., Carl G. Jung’s Synchronicity and Quantum Entanglement

Transactions of the Royal Society of London A Mansfield V and Spiegelman JM. Quantum mechanics 1997; 355: 2367-2380. and Jungian psychology: building a bridge. Hey J. Mitochondrial and nuclear genes present Journal of Analytical Psychology 1989; 34: 3-31. conflicting portraits of human origins. Molecular Mansfield V and Spiegelman JM. The opposites in Biology and Evolution 1997; 14: 166-172. quantum physics and Jungian psychology: Part I: Hossein-Nejad H and Scholes GD. Energy transfer, theoretical foundations. Journal of Analytical entanglement and decoherence in a molecular Psychology 1991; 36: 267-287. dimer interacting with a phonon bath. New Mansfield V. The opposites in quantum physics and Journal of Physics 2010; 12: 065045. Jungian psychology: Part II: applications. Journal Hou X, Wan M and Ma Z. Entropy, energy and of Analytical Psychology 1991; 36: 289-306. negativity in Fermi-resonance coupled states of Mansfield V and Spiegelman JM. On the physics and substituted methanes. Journal of Physics A: psychology of the transference as an interactive Mathematical and Theoretical 2010; 43:205301. field. Journal of Analytical Psychology 1996; 41: Hyland ME. Extended network generalized 179-202. entanglement theory: Therapeutic mechanisms, Martin F, Carminati F and Carminati GG. empirical predictions, and investigations. Journal Synchronicity, quantum information and the of Alternative and Complementary Medicine psyche. Journal of 2009; 3: 580-589. 2003a; 9: 919-936. Martin F, Carminati F and Carminati GG. Quantum Hyland ME. A brief guide to extended network information, oscillations and the psyche. Physics entanglement theory as a theory of healing and its of Particles and Nuclei 2010; 41: 425-451. empirical predictions. Research in McFaden J and Al-Khalili J. A quantum mechanical Complementary and Classical Natural Medicine model of adaptive mutation. Biosystems 1999; 50: 2003b; 10: 201-206. 203-211. Hyland ME. Emergent, entanglement, and being. Milgrom LR. Patient-practitioner-remedy (PPR) Journal of Holistic Healthcare 2004a; 1: 24-29. entanglement. Part 1: a qualitative, non-local Hyland ME. Does a form of ‘entanglement’ between metaphor for homeopathy based on quantum people explain healing? An examination of theory. Homeopathy 2002; 91: 239-248. hypotheses and . Complementary Mindell A. : the Edge Between Physics Therapies in Medicine 2004b; 12: 198-208. and Psychology. Portland, OR: Lao Tse Press, Jang S, Cheng Y, Reichman DR and Eaves JD. Theory 2000. of coherent resonance energy transfer. Journal of Mindell A. The Quantum Mind and Healing: How to Chemical Physics 2008; 129: 101104. Listen and Respond to Your Body’s Symptoms. Jie R and Shi-Qun Z. Attack-Induced Entanglement of Charlottesville, VA: Hampton Roads, 2004. Noninteracting Fermi Gas. Communications in Mishima K, Hayashi M and Lin SH. Entanglement in Theoretical Physics 2008; 49:1439. scattering processes. Physics Letters A 2004; 333: Jorde LB, Bamshad MJ, Watkins WS, Zenger R, 371-377. Fraley AE, Krakowiak PA, Carpenter KD, Soodyall Molyneux B. Why the neural correlates of H, Jenkins T and Rogers AR. Origins and affinities consciousness cannot be found. Journal of of modern humans: a comparison of Consciousness Studies 2010; 17: 168-188. mitochondrial and nuclear genetic data. The Nalbach P, Eckel J and Thorwart M. Quantum American Journal of Human Genetics 1995; 57: coherent biomolecular energy transfer with 523-538. spatially correlated fluctuations. New Journal of Kekovic G, Rakovic D, Tošic B, Davidovic D and Cosic Physic 2010; 12: 065043. I. Quantum foundations of resonant recognition Nazir A. Correlation-dependent coherent to model. Acta Physica Polonica A 2010; 117: 756- incoherent transitions in resonant energy transfer 759. dynamics. Physical Review Letters 2009; 103: Keutzer CS. Archetypes, synchronicity and the theory 146404. of formative causation. Journal of Analytical Nei M and Takezaki N. The root of the phylogenetic Psychology 1982; 27: 255-262. tree of human populations. Molecular Biology and Keutzer CS. Synchronicity in . Journal Evolution 1996; 13: 170-177. of Analytical Psychology 1984a; 29: 373-381. O’Connell AD, Hofheinz M, Ansmann M, Bialczak RC, Keutzer CS. The power of : From quantum Lenander M, Lucero E, Neeley M, Sank D, Wang mechanics to synchronicity. Journal of H, Weides M, Wenner J, Martinis JM and Cleland 1984b; 24: 80-94. AN. Quantum ground state and single-phonon Liu H, Prugnolle F, Manica A and Balloux F. A control of a mechanical resonator. Nature 2010; geographically explicit genetic model of worldwide 464: 697-703. human-settlement history. The American Journal Ogryzko VV. A quantum-theoretical approach to the of Human Genetics 2006; 79: 230-237. phenomenon of directed mutations in . Lucadou W, Römer H and Walach H. Synchronistic Biosystems 1997; 43: 83-95. phenomena as entanglement correlations in Ogryzko VV. Erwin Schrödinger, and generalized quantum theory. Journal of epigenetic stability. Biology Direct 2008; 3: 15. Consciousness Studies 2007; 14: 50–74. Oh S and Kim J. Entanglement of electron spins of Manfredi G and Hervieux PA. Loschmidt echo in a noninteracting electron gases. Physical Review A system of interacting electrons. Physical Review 2004; 69:054305. Letters 2006; 97: 190404. Olaya-Castro A, Lee CF, Olsen FF and Johnson NF. Efficiency of energy transfer in a light-harvesting

ISSN 1303 5150 www.neuroquantology.com

NeuroQuantology | June 2011 | Vol 9| Issue 2| Page 313-321 321 Limar IV., Carl G. Jung’s Synchronicity and Quantum Entanglement

system under quantum coherence. Physical Taric S, Kazim R and Tauqir I. Could human mind be Review B 2008; 78: 085115. a product of mental genes: a nonbiological Penfield W. The Mystery of the Mind. Princeton: component of brain genes ? NeuroQuantology Princeton University Press, 1978. 2010; 8: 359-377. Peng D and Hou X. Dynamical entanglement for Teodorani M. Synchronicity - The Link Between Fermi coupled stretching and bending modes. Physics and Psyche, from Pauli and Jung to Chinese Physics B 2009; 18:2719. Chopra. Cesena, 2006. Peng D and Hou X. Fidelity and Mutual Entropy in Thorwart M, Eckel J, Reina JH, Nalbach P and Weiss Mixed States for Fermi-resonance Coupling S. Enhanced quantum entanglement in the non- Vibrations of CS2. Chinese Journal of Chemical Markovian dynamics of biomolecular excitons. Physics 2010; 23:393. Chemical Physics Letters 2009; 478: 234-237. Pereira AJ. Astrocyte-trapped calcium ions: the Tulub AA. Coherent triplet and singlet states in hypothesis of a quantum-like conscious tubulin dynamics. Future Generation Computer protectorate, Quantum Biosystems 2007; 1: 80- Systems 2004; 20: 773–780. 92. Tulub AA and Stefanov VE. Triplet–singlet spin Pereira AJ and Furlan FA. On the role of synchrony communication between DNA nucleotides serves for neuron–astrocyte interactions and perceptual the basis for quantum computing. Chemical conscious processing. Journal of Biological Physics Letters 2007; 436: 258–262. Physics 2009; 35: 465-480. Vaas R. Why neural correlates of consciousness are Pereira AJ and Furlan FA. Astrocytes and human fine, but not enough. Anthropology & Philosophy : Modeling information integration and 1999; 3: 121-141. modulation of neuronal activity. Progress in Vedral V. Entanglement in the second quantization Neurobiology 2010; 92: 405-420. formalism. Central European Journal of Physics Persinger MA, Tsang EW, Booth JN and Koren SA. 2003; 1:289-306. Enhanced power within a predicted narrow band Vertesi T. Genuine tripartite entanglement in the of theta activity during stimulation of another by noninteracting Fermi gas. Physical Review A circumcerebral weak magnetic fields after weekly 2007; 75:042330. spatial proximity. NeuroQuantology 2008; 6: 7-21. Walach H. Magic of signs: A nonlocal interpretation of Plenio MB and Huelga SF. Dephasing-assisted homeopathy. Journal of Scientific Exploration transport: quantum networks and biomolecules. 1999; 13: 291-315. New Journal of Physics 2008; 10: 113019. Walach H. and Römer H. Complementarity is a useful Popper KR and Eccles JC. The and Its Brain. concept for consciousness studies. A Reminder. Berlin, Heidelberg, London, New York: Springer Neuroendocrinology Letters 2000; 21: 221-232. International, 1977. Zabrizkie B. Jung and Pauli. A subtle asymmetry. Primas H. Time–entanglement between mind and Journal of Analytical Psychology 1995; 40: 531- matter. Mind and Matter 2003; 1: 81-119. 553. Pritchard JK, Feldman MW, Risch N, Kidd KK and Zhou T. An evolution from quantum entanglement to Tishkoff SA. Genetic data and the African origin of classical disentanglement and its consequences in humans. Science 1996; 274: 1548-1549. statistical mechanics. Solid State Communications Resconi G and Nikravesh N. Morphic computing. 2000; 115:185-189. Applied Soft Computing 2008; 8: 1164–1177. Zinkin L. The Hologram as a model for analytical Rosen R. Biology and the measurement problem. psychology. Journal of Analytical Psychology Computers & Chemistry 1996; 20: 95-100. 1987; 32: 1-21. Sarovar M, Ishizaki A, Fleming GR and Whaley KB. Quantum entanglement in photosynthetic light- harvesting complexes. Nature Physics 2010; 6: 462 – 467. Schemp W. Replication and transcription processes in the molecular biology of gene expressions: control of the DNA quantum holographic information channel in nanobiotechnology. Biosystems 2003; 68: 119-145. Shabani A and Lidar DA. Theory of initialization-free decoherence-free subspaces and subsystems. Physical Review A 2005; 72: 042303. Sholes GD. Quantum-coherent electronic energy transfer: Did nature think of it first?. Physical Chemistry Letters 2010; 1: 2-8. Sirakoulis GC, Karafyllidis I, Sandaltzopoulos R, Tsalides P and Thanailakis A. An algorithm for the study of DNA sequence evolution based on the genetic code. BioSystems 2004; 77: 11–23. Stillfried N and Walach H. The whole and its parts: Are complementarity and non-locality intrinsic to closed systems?. International Journal of Computing Anticipatory Systems 2006; 17: 137- 146.

ISSN 1303 5150 www.neuroquantology.com