Re: Quantum Physics, Measurements and Robert's Functional Dynamics Concept

["Professor I.C. Baianu" <***>]

Dear John M.:

I appreciate very much you interesting thougths and timeline; it would seem
we started opposite ways, somewhat continued going opposite ways, but now
we seem to be partially overlapping our 'wave functions'. In the late 80's
I had quite a bit of work done and published on organic, as well as
biological-origin polymers.

I became involved in the exciting field of Relational Biology in 1965/6
when I was 20, although I was studying for my master's
in Physics & Medical Biophysics; in parallel, although we had plenty of
poorly presented maths and so-called "mathematical physics" classes (that
were totally useless being presented by mathematical "non-entities", lots
of biology, biochemistry (not enough), molecular biology (not quite
enough), classical genetics, cytology,physiology, and of course lots and
lots of medicine and biophysics classes and labs. My best, local friends
were, however, established mathematicians and physical chemists.
I audited their new and exciting courses on mathematical applications
of Category Theory, and the p.chem. experiments on Fluorescence of DNA,
Proteins, Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) and Nuclear Magnetic Resonance
(NMR) studies of biological and organic, inorganic systems ---mostly
solutions, but solids also. The latter one couldn't do at all without the
big Quantum 'Mechanics' Bibles on NMR (e.g., Abragam, 12 editions since
1962, Oxford Univ. press>> 1000 paqges) and ESR (e.g. Abragam and Bleaney,
1970; Clarendon press, Oxford:DEDICATED TO VAN VLECK ! 911 pages; both
chock-full of nicely worked out examples that give very numerous
experimental results EXACTLY as predicted by 'standard', Hamiltonian QM
computations, with due approximations whenever necessary). I've never
stopped using quantum theory computations in my published papers on p.chem.
applications to inorganics, organics and biological systems, involving
Magnetic Resonance. Even managed to write a second phys.chemistry master's
thesis on the Hyperfine analysis of ESR of inorganic and organic solutions
(both liquid and solid) of divalent copper salts, and the Dynamic Jahn-
Teller effect at 277K, and static at ~77 K, analized of course with
standard quantum theory Hamiltonians (kindly provided by the
Bleaney's 'Bible' on ESR). A famous p.chem. advisor was delighted to
approve the thesis, seconded by an equally famous 'nuclear'/
/magnetic resonance--ESR physics professor. We also looked at ESR of
live photosynthetic systems where it has provided, and continues to provide
invaluable results.
 In fact, the largest QT item I wrote was in 1992-- a chapter or two of
quantum theory in my textbook on physical chemistry applications.
Notably, Magnetic Resonance Imaging  (MRI) is currently one of the highly
valued, noninvasive techniques for FUNCTIONAL and Diagnostic Medical
Imaging. Behind the MRI operation , the observation principles and correct
analysis are as laid out by quantum theory. This means saving lots and lots
of people's lives. It did save mine too, as I was the 'diagnostician' who
ASKED FOR the MRI and, also produced the correct diagnostic of a suspected,
but false cancer, after examining two not-so-hot pictures for two full
hours!  Because, if I didn't, I would not be writing to you now!!!
Therefore, I have to disagree strongly about the usefulness of Quantum
Theory: it is established beyond any doubt in phys. chem./ biophys. chem.
etc., and also in Medical application developments; sometimes--quite often,
in fact--a reductionist approach has its uses, as long as it does not claim
that it provides the final, complete answers, that no modeling can do
anyway! And also , as long as it does not make any claim, <that's the only
way 'to skin the cat'>-- be it Schrodinger's or anybody else's.

What I did not say so far is that I did/do continue developing the
Relational Biology approach throughout the 80' and late 90's looking for
the essential mathematical tools, "new physics" and biological data needed
for refining the non-reductionist 'programmatic' approach that Nicolas
Rashevsky, Robert and I have assembled back in the early 70's with
substantial contributions from others such as George Karreman (Relational
Quantum Biology), Anthony Bartholomay (Relational Medicine and Diagnosis),
Matthew Witten (Measurement and Biological Observation theory), W. Foster
(M,R)-systems, to name just a few. It's been slow going but things are
obviously speeding up from all sides.

With best regards,

Ionel

On Sat, 29 May 2004 10:34:01 -0400, John M <***> wrote:

>Dear Ionel,
>not that I want to argue, (I am on divergent lines of thinking), just a
>remark about my "other" hero: David Bohm:
>
>He diverted from his conventional physics interest by the 60s and really
>became one of the founders of "modern thinking" - from the side of a
>physicist what he never ceased to be. (Once a physicist...)
>His ~1952 ideas were far from his later philosophy and in my opinion it was
>a mistake to make a posthumus edition of the physics he wrote THEN, without
>pointing out his (later) changed natural philosophy system. He WAS a great
>physicist but a GREATER philosopher.
>The "Wholeness and the Implicate Order"  is a fundamental work
>and he spent the rest of his thinking life in this domain, even when he was
>teaching 'college-physics'.
>
>I wrote my ~100 publications and books in polymer (chemistry) before I
>started to "think". My present ideas should not be mixed with the former
>(reductionist-researcher) work, as well, as RR also did have different
ideas
>before developing his "complexity" system.
>
>Regards
>
>John Mikes
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Ionel" <***>
>To: <***>
>Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 10:04 PM
>Subject: Quantum Physics, Measurements and Robert's Functional Dynamics
>Concept
>
>
>> I am adding a new part to my response on "States" and the measurement
>> problem in Quantum Theory. Some authors, such as David Bohm (fmrly. at
>> Oxford) and MacKay at Harvard, feel strongly that Quantum & Mechanics is
>> a "misnomer" for quite different reasons, although not totally
>unconnected.
>> Thus David Bohm says that all systems are connected in the entire
Universe
>> (s?) at the quantum, microscopic level, and that different properties of
>an
>> electron, for example, are exhibited with different interacting systems;
>> David Bohm in his Quantum Theory (1951 edn, 2nd edn. 1991) also goes
>> further in stating that the measurement system/detectors/apparatus and
the
>> quantum system that is observed have to be considered as a "whole" in the
>> quantum theory. Bohmm also states that therefore, even 'simple systems'
>> such as the electron exhibit complex behaviors at the microscopic level.
>>
>> This may, thus suggest that complexity, even in Robert's sense, does
>> originate at the quantum, microscopic level in biological organisms, as
he
>> was pondering on this question back in 1956, in his Quantum Genetics
>> article published in BMB.
>>
>> David Bohm also has some other interesting and provoking thoughts on why
>> and how quantum processes and the thought process in humans exhibit some
>> basic similarities, and he also cites some older views by Niels Bohr that
>> are labelled as 'highly speculative' on this subject. (See also my
>previous
>> posting on the preprint "N-Categories in Neuroscience" by Ronnie Brown
>> (freely downloadable at his site). On the whole, Robert's ideas about
>> measurement in complex systems do seem to be rather similar to David
>Bohm's,
>> although Robert doesn't cite Bohm in either his "Essays on Life..." or in
>> his original article on Quantum Genetics in 1956. Because, really, the
>root
>> of all discussion about Schrodinger's "What is Life?" and Robert's "Life
>> Itself", or F. Crick's "Life Itself..." is Quantum / Molecular Genetics.
>>
>> MacKay' lecture notes at Harvard on the "Mathematical Foundations of
>> Quantum Mechanics" (Theory?) makes the point that one cannot define a
>Phase
>> Space of single, dynamic state points, in Quantum Statistical Mechanics
>> because--according to Heisenberg's principle-- one cannot observe
>> simultaneously velocity and position at any "point in time". (Quantum)
>> States are then defined by means of a probability measure for certain
>> observables whose eigenvalues determined through measurement. Moreover,
>> just like Von Neumann and Robert, he distinguishes between "pure states"
>> and "mixtures of states" in quantum theory... but no hidden variables.
>> David Bohm agrees in his new edition: hidden variables won't work in
>quantum
>> theory, and therefore, "causality" in the Newtonian mechanical sense- or
>> Einstein's-- for that matter, won't work in quantum theory.
>> Both David Bohm and Werner Heisenberg agree on one thing : quantum theory
>> is not in the final, completed stage yet, more new physics is needed. In
>> this, Robert is in agreement with both of them. They seem to separate
when
>> it comes to the means by which to achieve/ develop the new physics. David
>> Bohm doesn't exclude biology from the new , quantum physics
>> but "speculatively" suggests possible bridges between quantum theory and
>the
>> thinking processes in the human brain. In my paper published back in
1972,
>> "A Category- Theoretical Analysis of Processes involved in
>EEG.",(RRM),that
>> we're scanning soon, I have obtained estimates of the energy needed to
>> sustain 'thinking processes' based in neural circuits/networks localized
>in
>> the brain's cortex, based on a combinatorial approach combined with
>> Category theory.