Cited by 776Quantum Mechanics and ApplicationsPhilosophy and Theoretical ScienceBiofield Effects and Biophysics

Importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes

Open access
Tegmark, Max·2000·Physical Review E

Abstract

Based on a calculation of neural decoherence rates, we argue that the degrees of freedom of the human brain that relate to cognitive processes should be thought of as a classical rather than quantum system, i.e., that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the current classical approach to neural network simulations. We find that the decoherence time scales ( approximately 10(-13)-10(-20) s) are typically much shorter than the relevant dynamical time scales ( approximately 10(-3)-10(-1) s), both for regular neuron firing and for kinklike polarization excitations in microtubules. This conclusion disagrees with suggestions by Penrose and others that the brain acts as a quantum computer, and that quantum coherence is related to consciousness in a fundamental way.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1103/physreve.61.4194

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The brain operates in a warm, decoherence-prone physiological environment.

    “Although the brain operates in a warm, decoherence-prone physiological environment [10,11]”
  • Tegmark's influential estimate concluded that MTs in a living brain could not support stable macroscopic quantum effects.

    “The idea that MTs in a living brain could support stable macroscopic quantum effects has generally been considered extremely implausible since Tegmark’s influential estimate of decoherence times in the brain (Tegmark 2000).”
  • Tegmark's critique assumed superpositions of solitons separated by 24 nanometers along the microtubule, but Orch OR superposition separation is at the Fermi length level of atomic nuclei, seven orders of magnitude smaller, so Tegmark underestimated decoherence time by seven orders of magnitude.

    “He assumed superpositions of solitons separated from themselves by a distance of 24 nanometers along the length of the microtubule.As previously described, superposition separation in Orch OR is at the Fermi length level of atomic nuclei, i.e. 7 orders of magnitude smaller than Tegmark's separation value, thus underestimating decoherence time by 7 orders of magnitude, i.e. from 10 -13 s to”

    From Consciousness in the universe (2014) · cites this paper as [161]

  • The Fisher-Escolà paradox was formally noted by Tegmark [65] and later discussed by other researchers [66].

    “This paradox was formally noted by Tegmark [65] and later discussed by other researchers [66].”
  • What we have demonstrated regarding the Q of Fisher-Escolà distribution does not resolve the decoherence problem described by Tegmark.

    “What we have demonstrated regarding the Q of Fisher-Escolà distribution does not resolve the decoherence problem described by Tegmark [65].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tegmark, M.
Affiliations
Institute for Advanced Study (US)
Corresponding author
Tegmark, Max
Venue
Physical Review E
Published
2000-04-01
Volume
61
Issue
4
Pages
4194-4206
ISSN
  • 1063-651X (ISSN-L)
  • 1095-3787
OpenAlex
W1520965145
Cited by
776
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 74 · 2025: 54 · 2024: 42 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 34 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 29 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 35 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 32
FWCI
8.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Physical review. E, Statistical physics, plasmas, fluids, and related interdisciplinary topics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum Mechanics and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Philosophy and Theoretical Science
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Biofield Effects and Biophysics
Keywords
decoherence, brain, microtubules, kink excitations, neuronal firing, quantum consciousness, Penrose, quantum brain, quantum computing
MeSH terms
Biometry, Biophysics, Brain, Cognition, Humans, Microtubules, Models, Neurological, Neurons, Quantum Theory, Neural Networks, Computer, Entropy, Biophysical Phenomena

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review