NeuroQuantology|September2010|Vol8|Issue3|Page390402 390

ErolM.,Quantumentanglement:fundamentalsandrelationswithconsciousness

BasicsofQuantumPhysics

QuantumEntanglement:
FundamentalsandRelationswith
Consciousness/Mind

MustafaErol
Abstract
The spooky action at a distance and consequently quantum entanglement of
physical systems/particles has been debated ever since the famous paper of
Einstein, Podolsky and RosenEPR Argument. In spite of being considered of
highly controversial, there has been a considerable amount of work so far
addressingtheissueandmanyscientificallysuccessfulexperimentswererecently
carried outproving that the entanglement is a physical reality. The influence of
quantum mechanics and entanglement has been far from the imagination of
most scientists, eventually reaching to the ultimate concept of
consciousness/mind. The entanglement theory, its connection to the
consciousness/mindandfinallytheentanglementtheoryofconsciousness/mind
therefore demands pure scientific interest. In order to maintain the
requirements, the present work firstly summarizes the quantum entanglement
theory together with its relations with Bells inequality and finally describes an
entanglementmodelofconsciousness/mind.

Key Words: quantum physics, entanglement, EPR Argument, Bells inequality,
CHSHinequality,consciousness,mind.
NeuroQuantology2010;3:390402

1. Introduction1 resources. The indispensable principles of

Quantum physics, probably the most
influential scientific discipline of all, have
been continuously feeding contemporary
technologies and also other disciplines, such
as biology, neuroscience, psychology,
economics and even philosophy/theology
(Penrose, 1989; 1994; Stapp, 1993; Eisert
and Wiseman, 2007; Abbot et al., 2008). In
this manner, quantum physics have a very
distinct position within the overall scientific
Correspondingauthor:MustafaErol
Address:DepartmentofPhysicsEducation,EducationFacultyof
Buca,DokuzEyllUniversity,Buca,zmir,35160,TURKEY.
Phone:++2324204882/1311
email:mustafa.erol@deu.edu.tr
SubmittedforPublication:June30,2010;finalrevisionreceived
August31,2010;acceptedSeptember16,2010.
ISSN13035150
quantum physics such as quantum
superposition (De Martini, 2007; Romero-
Isart et al., 2009), EPR argument
paradox/entanglement (Aspect et al., 1982;
Horodecki et al., 2009), decoherence/wave
function collapse (Zurek, 1981; 1982; Paz
and Zurek, 1999), quantum Zeno effect
(Schwartz et al., 2005; Koshino and Shi
mizu, 2005; Stapp, 2009), in spite of being
considered notorious, have already had
foremost impact on the scientific world view.
These phenomena are typically far removed
from our intuitive limits and everyday
experience. It is of interest of quantum
physicists worldwide to explore various ways
of bringing quantum phenomena closer to
the macroscopic levels, to everyday life.
www.neuroquantology.com
NeuroQuantology|September2010|Vol8|Issue3|Page390402
ErolM.,Quantumentanglement:fundamentalsandrelationswithconsciousness
Quantum Entanglement is almost certainly
the most prominent of all in terms of
practical concerns and stands right at the
centre of the quantum phenomena
(Schrdinger, 1935) and inspires
fundamental questions about the principles
of the nature. Moreover, quantum
entanglement is also the basis for a number
of emerging technologies of quantum
information processing such as quantum
cryptography (Bennett and Brassard, 1984;
Ekert, 1991), quantum teleportation (Bennett
et al., 1993; Bouwmeester et al., 1997; Ursin
et al., 2004; Riebe et al., 2004; Barret et al.,
2004) and quantum computation (Deuctsch
and Ekert, 1998).
The scientific efforts on quantum
phenomena are recently pushed even further
to specifically explore ultimately challenging
concepts such as consciousness/mind and
relating human psychology (Stapp, 1991;
1993; 1995; Beck and Eccles, 1992; Penrose,
1994; Eccles, 1994; Jibu and Yasue, 1995;
Hameroff and Penrose, 1996; Tegmark,
2000; Beck, 2008; Abbot et al, 2008; Conte
et al., 2008, 2009a, 2009b; Khrennikov,
2005; 2006a; 2006b; Vitiello, 2003). The
topic undoubtedly emerges interdisciplinary
cooperation and has already attracted some
considerable interest of physicists, biologists
and neuroscientists. Quantum mechanics
and specifically the entanglement
phenomenon seem to have a strong scientific
potential to prove that the
consciousness/mind works in accordance
with the quantum physical laws. The
consciousness/mind and indeed brain have
for centuries been the scorching topic of both
scientific and philosophical issues and finally
there seems to be a sparkling at the end of
the tunnel. Therefore, fundamentals of
certain subjects such as superposition
principle, entanglement, decoherence, Bose-
Einstein condensation, quantum Zeno effect
and their scientific relations with
consciousness/mind demand to be crystal
clarified.
The present work hence aims to
summarize the fundamental theory of
quantum entanglement and also very closely
relating topic of Bells inequality, specifically
employed to test the validity of local
realism and therefore quantum
entanglement. Finally, an entanglement
model of consciousness/mind and its
ISSN13035150
391
relations with Bells inequalities are
reported.
2. Fundamentals of Quantum
Entanglement
Quantum mechanical particles/systems,
having physical sizes approximately less than
10-7m, are accompanied by waves and spatial
confinement of the particles leads the
Schrdingers equation to produce a set of
solutions, n ( x, t ) , (Eisberg and Resnick,
1974; Erol, 2010). These wave functions
which are complete in the sense that any
specific energy of En with a corresponding
wave function n ( x, t ) must also satisfy the
original form of the Schrdinger Wave
Equation (SWE) that is Eigen value-Eigen
function equation,
H n ( x, t ) = En n ( x, t ) ( 1)
where H denotes the Hamiltonian operator,
n indicates the relevant quantum state and is
known as principle quantum number.
According to the SWE, any quantum
mechanical particle with a mass of m, total
energy of E and potential energy of V(x)
would physically have possible total energies
of En, specifically, E1, E2, E3, .., En. The
corresponding wave functions accompanying
the particle/system can be expressed as
1 ( x, t ), 2 ( x, t ), 3 ( x, t ),...., n ( x, t ) . Each of
the wave function n ( x, t ) is a particular
solution of the Schrdingers equation for the
same potential energy of V(x) and is said to
be a member of mathematically well defined
Hilbert Space that is expressed by,
H={ 1 ( x, t ), 2 ( x, t ), 3 ( x, t ),...., n ( x, t ),... } (2)
Since the SWE and the wave functions are
linear then we expect that any linear
combination of these functions will also be a
solution of the SWE. This can clearly be
extended to show that any arbitrary linear
combination of all wave functions which are
solutions to the SWE represent the overall
wave function and can be given as,
( x, t ) = c1 1 ( x, t ) + c2 2 ( x, t ) + c3 3 ( x, t )
(3)
+... + cn n ( x, t ) + ... = cn n ( x, t )
n =1
www.neuroquantology.com
NeuroQuantology|September2010|Vol8|Issue3|Page390402
ErolM.,Quantumentanglement:fundamentalsandrelationswithconsciousness
This general principle is called
superposition principle. It is
mathematically well known fact that the
wave functions of the Hilbert space must
satisfy the orthonormality principle that is
formulated by Kroenecker Function,
m = n 1
mn = ( x, t ). n ( x, t ).dx =
*
m n 0
m
The expression of ( x, t ) gives the
most general form of the solutions to the
SWE for a potential energy of V(x). Its
generality can be appreciated by noting that
it is a function which is composed of a very
large number of different functions
combined in proportions governed by the
adjustable constants of cn. The quantum
particle, associated with the wave, must be at
a specific time t and location x whereas the
waves are spread in space and can only have
an amplitude, frequency and phase at that
point and time. Talking about the physical
meaning of the wave function, Borns
interpretation also known as Copenhagen
interpretation, states that the measurable
physical quantity in this case is probability
density-P(x,t) and is defined as the
probability per unit length of x axis, of
finding the particle near the coordinate x and
time t. The finding probability must also be
real and non-negative, whereas the wave
function (x,t) is complex and obviously not
possible to equate P(x,t). However
*(x,t)(x,t) is always real and non-negative
and can be correlated to probability density
by P(x,t)=*(x,t)(x,t). The wave function
and so the probability density P(x,t) must be
continuous in space then the probability
P(x,t)dx is defined as the finding probability
of the particle within dx , in other words,
between x and x+dx. The overall probability
can be found by integrating the expression
for the all space that is
P = * ( x, t ) ( x, t )dx = 1
We now want to determine the probability of
Pn that is finding the quantum particle at a
quantum state of n and energy of En. In order
to do so, we substitute the expression (3)
ISSN13035150
392
into the equation of (5) and also employ the
Kroenecker function then we obtain,
P = cn = Pn = 1
2
( 6)
n =1 n =1
The equation shows that the constant cn has
a very important meaning of probability.
(4)
2
Specifically, Pn= cn means total finding
probability of the particle/system at the
quantum state of n and energy of En. The
definition of the constant cn can
straightforwardly be formulated as
2
( x, t ) ( x, t )dx
2
Pn = cn = *
n (7)
which indicates the importance of the
interaction between any specific state of n,
n ( x, t ) , and the general wave function,
( x, t ) , containing all the possible states.
The entanglement theory starts with
consideration of two distinct quantum
systems/particles, namely A and B, both
obeying the basic principles described above
and can be defined as linear combinations of
all the possible quantum states (Horodecki et
al., 2009). The superposition principle can
be employed to express the wave functions
mathematically; the overall individual
Schrdinger wave functions are simply given
by
A = cn n , B = cm m ( 8)
n =1 m =1
If the quantum particles/systems A and B
are somehow combined quantum
mechanically and structure a quantum
composite system, no matter how far they
are spatially separated, then the quantum
composite system must have the wave
function of AB . The quantum mechanical
laws state that the overall wave function of
( 5) the composite system is formulated by the
tensor product of the individual wave
functions that is,
AB = A B ( 9)
The equation (7) smartly defines the joint
probability, also known as the correlation
www.neuroquantology.com
NeuroQuantology|September2010|Vol8|Issue3|Page390402 393
ErolM.,Quantumentanglement:fundamentalsandrelationswithconsciousness

coefficient, that is finding probability of the pure/separable then the entanglement

composite system at a quantum state of (n, parameter, Enm = 1 and joint probability is
m), which means the system A is at the
given by Pnmseparable = Pn Pm . If the states of the
quantum state of n and the system B at the
quantum state of m. The joint probability composite system are, on the other hand,
can quantum mechanically be expressed as entangled/non-separable/interacting then
the entanglement parameter, Enm 1 and the
Pnm = cn cm ( n m )* n m dx
2
joint probability is simply given by
(10)
2 2 2 2 en tan gled
Pnm = Pn Pm Enm
n m dx = Pn Pm Enm
2
= cn cm

Infinite Square Well Potential

where Pn and Pm denotes individual Paradigm
probabilities of the system A and B at the In order to demonstrate basic definitions,
quantum states of n and m respectively. The given above, we consider the very well
entanglement parameter defined by an known infinite square well potential which
integral equation of assumes a quantum particle/electron is
confined in an infinite potential well with a
2 2
width of L. Two individual quantum wells
Enm = n m dx
2
(11) (bipartite), A and B, are separated spatially
no matter what the distance is and only two
and purely determines the entanglement quantum states, namely first and second, are
/interaction/coupling level of the distant considered for simplicity. The solution of the
individual quantum particles/systems. This SWE gives the overall wave functions as
parameter also expresses the deviation of the (Eisberg and Resnick, 1974)
joint probability of the quantum composite
systems/particles from the text book 2 x 2 2 x
A = c1A cos( ) + c 2A sin( ),
classical joint probability value of Pnm = Pn Pm . L L L L
The classical probability does not hold unless 2 x 2 2 x
one adds a quantum mechanical interference B = c1B cos( ) + c 2B sin( )
L L L L
term. If the composite system behaves like a
classical composite system that means no
where the complex constants are randomly
entanglement/coupling/interaction occurs
chosen as,
between the sub-systems then the states are
called pure/separable states then the
entanglement parameter equals to unity. 1 2 1 2
c1A = , c2A = , c1B = , c2B =
Pure/separable states also mean that the 3 3 5 5
quantum entanglement parameter is given
by the product of the individual finding Individual measurements give the
probabilities of the sub-systems, that is probability of having the quantum state of
n=1 for A and m=1 for the system B, as
2 2
Enm = n m dx
2
2 1 2 1
P1 A = c1A = , P B1 = c1B =
2 2 3 5
= n dx. m dx = 1
2

Consider the two systems are separated by

The approach defined above offers a very
basic but meaningful tool to test and
understand any quantum particles or
systems are entangled or not when two or
more of them are combined together to
structure a composite system. Basically, if
the states of the composite system are
ISSN13035150
very large distances and consistently
structure a quantum composite system
then the joint probability of having the
quantum state of n=1 for A and of m=1 for
the system B, is formulated as
www.neuroquantology.com
NeuroQuantology|September2010|Vol8|Issue3|Page390402 394
ErolM.,Quantumentanglement:fundamentalsandrelationswithconsciousness

x x
( )
* 2 L
P11 = c1A c1B 1A 1B 1A 1B dx I11 = cos 2 ( )cos 2 ( )dx =
0
L L
x x
2
1 4 x 2 x
2
= cos 2 ( )cos 2 ( )dx
cos L dx cos ( L )dx
2
15 L L L

The quantum entanglement parameter can would possibly be written and the
be extracted straightforwardly as entanglement integral and the quantum
entanglement parameter would respectively
4 x x 4
2 2
be found as
2
E11 = cos 2 ( )cos 2 ( )dx = 2 I11
L L L L 2
L2 2 L2 4 L2
I11 = 2 = , E11 = 2 =1
where I11 denotes the corresponding 4 4 L 4
entanglement integral which can be
calculated, with in the limits of well width The quantum entanglement parameter
(0-L), as would expectedly be equal to unity and the
joint overall probability would be estimated
L
x x as
I11 = cos 2 ( )cos 2 ( )dx =
0
L L
x 1
P11separable = Pn Pm = = 0.0666
cos ( )dx =
4

L 15
L
L 6 x 1 1 4 x 2 x 6L which is equal to the classical statistical joint
( ) + sin( ) + 2 sin( =
16 L 8 4 L L 0 16 probability. This would mean no spooky
action at a distance occurs between the
Substitution of the integral I11 gives the separable particles/systems.
quantum entanglement expression as

2 3. Bells Inequality Theorem

4 6L 9 Bells Inequality (Bell, 1964) and
E11 = 2 = 2
L 16 4L consequently Bell test experiments (Aspect
et al., 1982; Weihs et al., 1998; Tittel et al.,
and the joint probability as 1998; Gisin et al., 2000; Rowe et al., 2001;
Matsukevich et al., 2008) provide to
1 9 investigate simply the validity of the local
P11en tan gled = Pn Pm Enm = realism under any local hidden variable
15 4 L2
theory and consequently validity of the
The most basic example of the entanglement quantum entanglement effect. Bell's
by considering the two infinite quantum Theorem states that the universe is not
wells indicates that the bipartite systems locally deterministic and a Bell inequality
must be entangled independently from the must be obeyed under local realism
physical distance. It is also clearly seen that however is to be violated under the influence
the quantum states are somehow of quantum mechanics. In the
entangled/interacting and the joint formulization of local realism used by Bell,
probability depends up on the width of the the predictions of theory result from the
well, L. The result solidly suggests spooky application of classical probability theory to
action at a distance somehow occurs. Just to an underlying parameter space. By a simple
see the vital difference between entangled argument based on classical probability, he
and separable quantum systems, if the states then showed that correlations between
were separable then measurements are bounded in a way that is
violated by quantum mechanics. Bell's
theorem seemed to put an end to local realist
hopes for quantum mechanics. Bell test

ISSN13035150 www.neuroquantology.com
NeuroQuantology|September2010|Vol8|Issue3|Page390402
ErolM.,Quantumentanglement:fundamentalsandrelationswithconsciousness
experiments to date overwhelmingly show
that Bell inequalities are violated. These
results provide empirical evidence against
local realism and in favor of quantum
mechanics. According to quantum theory,
quantum correlations violating Bell
inequalities simply happen, somehow from
outside space-time, in the sense that there is
no space-time explanation for their
occurrence: there is no event here that
somehow influences another distant event
there. The term "Bell inequality" can mean
any one of a number of inequalities, in real
experiments, the CHSH (Clauser, Horne,
Shimony and Holt) (Clauser et al., 1969)
two channel inequality or CH74 (Clauser
and Horne, 1974) single channel inequality.
The standard probability theory
assumes that joint probability, also named
as correlation coefficient of two individual
systems/particles of A and B, is given by
product of the independent probabilities of
the two sides that is Pab=P(a)P(b). In the case
of classical probability theory, the joint
probability is assumed to be determined by
the "hidden variable" of . The hidden
variable is assumed to be drawn from a
fixed distribution of possible states of the
source, the probability of the source being in
the state of for any particular trial being
given by the density probability function of
(). Then the expectation value of the joint
probability or correlation coefficient is
given by
P( a, b) = C(a, b) = P(a, )P(b, ) ( )d (12)
where P(a,) and P(b,) are the average
probability values of the outcomes for the
event a and the event b simultaneously.
Then, if a, a, are alternative settings for the
detectors at side A and b, b for the side B,
then the difference in the correlation
coefficients is formulated by
C(a, b) C(a, b) =
(13)
[ P(a, )P(b, ) P(a, )P(b, ) ] ( )d
This equation can also be written as
ISSN13035150
395
C ( a, b) C ( a, b) =
P(a, )P(b, )[1 P(a, )P(b, )] ( )d
P( a, ) P(b, )[1 P( a, ) P(b, )] ( )d
Using |P(a,)|1 and |P(b,)|1 and also using
the inequalities of
[1 P(a, )P(b, )] ( ) 0
and [1 P( a, )P(b, )] ( ) 0
one can easily get the expression of
C ( a, b) C ( a, b)
[1 P(a, )P(b, )] ( )d
[1 P(a, )P(b, )] ( )d
or, using the integral of ( )d = 1 ,
the expression can be written as
C ( a, b) C ( a, b) 2 [C ( a, b) + C ( a, b)]
or in the more familiar form the final CHSH
inequality expression is given by
S = C(a,b) C(a,b) + C(a,b) + C(a,b) 2 (14)
The CHSH inequality is expected to
be satisfied if the local realism is in power.
If the CHSH inequality factor, S, is
numerically greater than 2, it has infringed
the CHSH inequality and the experiment is
declared to have supported the predictions of
the quantum mechanics and hence
entanglement effect. The reader should
note that the upper limit for the inequality is
moved to 2 2 and a reasonable amount of
work has been studying the Tsirelsons
bound since then (Cirelson, 1980).
Considering the quantum system of A at a
special setting of a with an orientation angle
of and the quantum system of B at a
special setting of b with an orientation angle
, the CHSH theory formulates the
correlation coefficient of C as,
C ( , ) = PHH ( , )
(15)
+ PTT ( , ) PHT ( , ) PTH ( , )
www.neuroquantology.com
NeuroQuantology|September2010|Vol8|Issue3|Page390402
ErolM.,Quantumentanglement:fundamentalsandrelationswithconsciousness
where H and T denotes the possible two
outcomes of the measurements of and .
The expression can alternatively be
formulated as,
C ( , ) =
cos ( )cos ( ) ( )d = (16)
2 2
1 cos
+ and
8 4
which is a very useful expression when
comparing the experimental outcomes of any
specific measurement.
4. Quantum Mechanics and
Consciousness /Mind
Information processing in the brain as a
matter is mediated by the dynamics of large
highly interconnected neuronal populations.
The processes of the neurons have
scientifically been resolved to some extent,
however especially collective behavior of the
neuron groups seems to be far from being
resolved by simply employing biological,
chemical, neuroscientific or classical physics
laws. It is a solid fact, on the other hand, that
inside any neuron, there are atoms,
molecules and sub atomic particles which
obey the principles of quantum mechanics
and fulfill the space. It is therefore crystal
clear that at atomic/molecular and
subatomic levels quantum mechanical laws
are decisive in the brain processes.
Consciousness/mind, on the other hand,
has historically and philosophically been
considered as a non-physical concept and
rather considered to be a meta-physical
entity. Therefore binding problem has been
one of the most challenging topics of the
scientific and philosophical contents. Recent
research especially on functional brain
imaging techniques and anesthesia
applications clearly indicates the link
between consciousness/mind and brain
(Hameroff and Penrose, 1996). The basic but
foremost conclusion here is that the
consciousness/mind is essentially energy
hence certainly has a physical meaning.
This is apparent if one considers simply the
Electroencephalography (EEG)
measurements of consciousness/mind.
Considering the minimum (delta waves,
ISSN13035150
396
fmin=1Hz) and maximum (gamma waves,
fmax=100Hz) frequencies of the brain waves
correspond to the energy levels of;
Emin=hf=4,14.10-15eV and Emax=hf=4,14.10-
13eV. These energies can be considered the
upper and lower limits of the energy
quantization which can be considered as the
consciousness/mind energy quanta,
previously named as Thoughton/Ton by
(Erol, 2010) and Psychon by Eccles (Beck
Eccles; 1992), of the
mind/consciousness processes. If we
compare these energy levels with the thermal
energy levels at room temperatures, that is
E=kT=1,38.10-23 J/K 300K=0,025eV and
corresponding thermal fluctuation frequency
is f=E/h=6,25.1012Hz, it is clear that the
thermal fluctuations and
mind/consciousness energies never couple
each other supporting the quantum
consciousness/mind.
This scientific fact actually realized more
than three quarters of a century ago and
persistently the importance of the subject is
underlined by a number of exceptional
scientists (Lotka, 1925; Bohr, 1928; von
Neumann, 1932; Whitehead, 1933; Bohm,
1952; Eccles, 1973; Walker, 1970; Bass,
1975). One of the founders of the quantum
physics, Bohr himself, underlined the
possible link between quantum mechanics
and mind/consciousness and stated that
thoughts may involve energies at quantum
levels (Bohr, 1928). In spite of
understandable resistance of the physics
community, its now excitingly promising
that the scientific research has recently been
increased dramatically, especially following
the apparent interest of the quantum
physicists to the subject and recent research
giving very strong positive signals about the
sparkle future of the subject (Beck, 2008;
Conte, 2008; Stapp, 1991; Hameroff and
Penrose, 1996; Vitiello, 2003; Jibu and
Yasue, 1995; Stapp, 1993, 1995; Khrennikov,
2005, 2006a, 2006b; Tegmark, 2000;
Penrose, 1994; Conte et al. 2008, 2009a,
2009b; Eccles, 1994; Beck and Eccles, 1992;
Abbot et al., 2008).
Amongst many quantum physical
principles, the superposition principle
(Clauser, 1997; Reiger et al., 2006; Romero-
Isart et al., 2009; de Martini et al., 2005,
2007; Chan et al., 2003), entanglement/EPR
paradox (Watterich, 2008), decoherence /
www.neuroquantology.com
NeuroQuantology|September2010|Vol8|Issue3|Page390402
ErolM.,Quantumentanglement:fundamentalsandrelationswithconsciousness
wave function collapse, quantum Zeno effect,
Bose-Einstein condensation (Moore et al.,
1999) and macroscopic quantum effects
(Schrdinger, 1935; Marshall et al., 2003;
Inouye et al., 1999; de Sarlo et al., 2005) are
the topics immediately highlighting on being
decisive of consciousness/mind processes.
The simple expression of the question
(7), to our view, plays a central role in
analyzing consciousness/mind operations
because as it is clear from the equation any
specific decision or behavior of the
consciousness/mind, n(x,t), is very strongly
influenced by the general state of the
consciousness/mind, (x,t), determined
primarily by the instant information input
via internal and external signals, previous
experience/memory and environmental
effects. Under the illuminations of the works
and the thoughts above, we propose
following hypothesizes to support the
quantum mind/consciousness and the
following theory of entanglement model of
consciousness/mind is developed in
accordance with the hypotheses (Erol, 2010).
Hypothesis 1
Consciousness/mind is a pure physical
concept and energy, establishes at a time
level of about 0.1s, space level of about 10-15
m and energy level of about 10-15 eV.
Therefore it is well in the quantum regime
and must be treated accordingly.
Hypothesis 2
Brain and mind/consciousness are identical
and no separable (same) concepts at that
energy and space levels and there is no
binding problem as such.
5. Entanglement Model of
Consciousness/Mind
The highly complicated mechanisms of
consciousness/brain, such as decision
making, believing, thinking, comparing,
feeling etc., are to be governed by the
quantum mechanical laws at atomic and sub-
atomic scales. It is assumed that the
consciousness/mind in fact is a quantum
field with field particle/quanta of Ton. It
can easily be speculated that the field is
possibly the tachyonic field (Feinberg, 1967;
Hari, 2008). Therefore the quanta of
consciousness/mind, Ton, with a potential
energy of V(x), mass of m and total energy of
ISSN13035150
397
E, must be governed by the Schrdinger
Wave Equation. The solutions form a set of
wave functions given by the equations (3)
and (4) with a specific finding probability
given by the equation of (7). The
consciousness/mind model is, for simplicity,
developed for guessing possible outcomes of
a tossing a coin experiment, however can
straightforwardly be generalized. Consider a
person or consciousness/mind facing a
tossing a coin trial; he/she has exclusively
two choices, either head (H) or tail (T). The
consciousness/mind, according to the
equation (3) and before making the relating
decision, is accompanied by a general wave
function of,
= cH H + cT T (17)
The decision making process causes the wave
function reduction/collapse to a specific
state of either H or T, through the
decoherence mechanism of quantum
mechanics (Zurek, 1981, 1982). Decoherence
is the spontaneous interference of a quantum
system with its environment leads to wave
function collapse/reduction and explains
how classical world may emerge from the
quantum world and specifically underlines
the other important issue of measurement
problem. Wave function collapse is
considered to be the choice of observer not
the choice of nature and has a primary
importance to understand the consciousness
but beyond the scope of this paper and will
be considered in the future studies. The
general wave function is a member of
orthonormal vector space that is two
dimensional Hilbert space and instant state
of the overall wave function depends up on
the angle . The angle can be assumed as
the point of view and is primarily a
function of time, internal dynamics, external
dynamics, and memory. Two dimensional
wave function/vector space or Hilbert space
can simply be visualized as follows
www.neuroquantology.com
NeuroQuantology|September2010|Vol8|Issue3|Page390402 398
ErolM.,Quantumentanglement:fundamentalsandrelationswithconsciousness

AB = A ( x, t ) B ( x, t ) =
T
cHA cHB HA HB + cTA cTB TA TB
(20)
+cHA cTB HA TB + cTA cHB TA HB

The joint probability or correlation

coefficient of having H for the person A and
again H for the person B is given by

2
PHH = cHA cHB HA HB dx
2 2
H
2
(21)

A 2 B 2 A 2 B 2
The overall wave function accompanying the =c H c H H H dx
quanta/Ton of the consciousness/mind is
basically given by The entanglement parameter-EHH can
G G G simply be derived by using the standard
= H + T (18) theory of entanglement presented
previously. In the relating literature, several
with the corresponding equations papers focus to test the CHSH inequality by
H = cos , similarly considering spin polarizations of
T = sin , and the individual quantum particles. The angles
in those papers are defined as the angles of

= tan 1 ( T ) the polarization and have very similar
H physical meaning. The quantum
entanglement parameters for the very
Considerations of the equation (17) and similar cases are calculated elsewhere by
sin 2 + cos 2 = 1 leads us to extract the using law of Malus (Malus, 1809) as
constants of the superposition principle
which are cH = cos and cT = sin . The 2 2
EHH = ETT = HA HB dx = 2 cos2 ( ) (22)
2

basic vector model of consciousness/mind

suggested above can be extended to derive
the equations for the quantum 2 2
EHT = ETH = HA/T TB/H dx = 2sin2 ( ) (23)
2
entanglement. In order to extract the basic
equation for the entangled minds, consider
two separate quantum systems / minds / Hence, joint probabilities can easily be
persons of A and B with the point of view formulated for the head-head, tail-tail, head-
angles of and , respectively. The angles tail and finally tail-head combinations
here are named as the point of view angles respectively as (Dehlinger and Mitchell,
but essentially they are the angles of the 2002)
overall instant wave functions with respect to
the horizontal direction. Then the overall 2
wave functions for the mind/person A and PHH = cHA cHB .2 cos 2 ( )
mind/person B are given by = cos 2 cos 2 .2 cos 2 ( )
2
A = cos HA + sin TA PTT = cTA cTB .2 cos 2 ( ) =
B = cos HB + sin TB (19) sin 2 sin 2 .2 cos 2 ( )
2

The composite system, which consists of the PHT = cHA cTB .2 sin 2 ( ) =
two consciousnesses/minds and if the two cos 2 sin 2 .2 sin 2 ( )
construct a quantum system, has a wave 2
function given by the tensor product of the PTH = cTA cHB .2 sin 2 ( ) =
two wave functions that is
sin 2 cos 2 .2 sin 2 ( )

ISSN13035150 www.neuroquantology.com
NeuroQuantology|September2010|Vol8|Issue3|Page390402 399
ErolM.,Quantumentanglement:fundamentalsandrelationswithconsciousness

en tan gled
Eqm ( a, b) = cos 2
The correlation coefficient, formulated by
the LHVT, given below
can easily be found and is with excellent
agreement with the previous findings
C ( , ) = PHH ( , ) (Dehlinger and Mitchell, 2002).
+ PTT ( , ) PHT ( , ) PTH ( , )
6. Conclusions
Fundamentals of the quantum entanglement
is summarized and a quantum entanglement
parameter, given by the equation (11) is
is employed to calculate the actual defined. The entanglement parameter clearly
correlation coefficient for the experimental indicates possible coupling/interaction of
setting angles of and and found to be two distant quantum states. The coupling of
the two distant quantum systems has been
en tan gled
Cqm ( , ) = tested by means of the well-known Bells
inequalities, specifically by using CHSH
2 cos 2 ( ) cos 2 cos 2 + sin 2 sin 2 (24) inequality relation that is the equation (14).
The CHSH inequality is derived and the
2 sin 2 ( ) cos 2 sin 2 + sin 2 cos 2
relation with the entanglement is expressed
both theoretically and experimentally. The
considering the separable states which leads subtle topic of scientific relation between
to unity of the entanglement parameter gives quantum mechanics and consciousness /
the following equation mind is explained with the support of the
relating literature. Finally, a basic model of
separable
Cqm ( , ) = the consciousness/mind is explained and a
(25)
sin 2 (sin 2 cos 2 ) + cos 2 (cos 2 sin 2 ) quantum entanglement model of the
consciousness/mind is developed. The
equations of (14), (15) and (24) can be
which is equivalent to the classical
employed to experimentally test the validity
circumstances as expected. In general, when
of the quantum entanglement of the

H = T and = = tan 1 ( T ) =45 minds/consciousnesses which is planned to
H be the specific aim of a forthcoming paper.
then

ISSN13035150 www.neuroquantology.com
NeuroQuantology|September2010|Vol8|Issue3|Page390402
ErolM.,Quantumentanglement:fundamentalsandrelationswithconsciousness
References
Abbot D. Davies P.C. and Pati A.K. Quantum Aspects
of Life. Imperial College Press, London, 2008.
Aspect A. Grangier P. and Roger G. Experimental
Realization of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm
Gedankenexperiment: A New Violation of Bell's
Inequalities. Physical Review Letters 1982; 49(2):
91-94.
Barrett M. D.S. Chiaverini J. T. Britton J. Itano W. M.
Jost J. D. Knill E. Langer C. Leibfried D. Ozeri R.
and Wineland D. J. Deterministic Quantum
Teleportation of Atomic Qubits. Nature 2004; 429:
737-739.
Bass L.A. Quantum Mechanical Mind-Body
Interaction. Foundations of Physics 1975; 5(1):159.
Bell J.S. On the EinsteinPodolskyRosen Paradox,
Physics Long Island City, N.Y. 1964; 1: 195-200,
and the non-technical article Against
Measurement. Physics World 1990; 3: 33-40.
Beck F. and Eccles J.C. Quantum Aspects of
Consciousness and the Role of Consciousness. Proc.
Nat. Acad. Sci. 1992; 89:11357.
Beck F. Synaptic Quantum Tunneling in Brain Activity.
NeuroQuantology 2008; 6(2): 140.
Behera L. Kar I. and Elitzur A. Quantum Brain: A
Recurrent Quantum Neural Network Model to
Describe Eye Tracking of Moving Targets.
www.arxiv.org/abs/q-bio.NC/0407001, 2004
Bennett C.H. and Brassard G. Quantum Cryptography:
Public Key Distribution and Coin-Tossing.
Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on
Computers, Systems and Signal Processing,
Bangalore, India, 1984; 175-179.
Bennett C.H. Brassard G. Crpeau C. Jozsa R. Peres A.
and Wootters W.K. Teleporting an Unknown
Quantum State via Dual Classical and EPR
Channels. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1993; 70: 1895-1899.
Bohm D. A. Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum
Theory in Terms of Hidden Variables I and II.
Physical Review 1952; 85: 166.
Bohr N. The Quantum Postulate and Recent
Development of Atomic Theory. Nature 1928; 121;
580.
Bouwmeester D. Pan J.W. Mattle K. Eibl M.
Weinfurter H. and Zeilinger A. Experimental
Quantum Teleportation. Nature 1997; 390: 575.
Chan K.W. Law C.K. and Eberly J.H. Quantum
Entanglement in Photon-Atom Scattering. Phys.
Rev. 2003; A68: 022110.
Cirel'son B. S. Quantum Generalizations of Bell's
Inequality. Lett. Math. Phys. 1980; 4: 93.
Clauser J.F. De Broglie-Wave Interference of Small
Rocks and Live Viruses. In Experimental
Metaphysics, 1997.
Clauser J. F. and Horne M. A. Experimental
Consequences of Objective Local Theories. Phys.
Rev. 1974; D10: 526-35.
Clauser J. F. Horne M. A. Shimony A. and Holt R. A.
Proposed Experiment to Test Local Hidden-
Variable theories. Physical Review Letters 1969; 23:
880-884.
ISSN13035150
400
Conte E. Testing Quantum Consciousness.
NeuroQuantology 2008; 6 (2):126-139.
Conte E. Khrennikov A.Y. Todarello O. Federici A.
Mendolicchio L. and Zbilut J.P. Mental States
Follow Quantum Mechanics During Perception and
Cognition of Ambiguous Figures. Open Systems &
Information Dynamics 2009a; 16 (1): 1.
Conte E. Todarello O. Khrennikov A.Y. Federici A. and
Zbilut J.P. Experimentation Indicates that in Mind
States Bell Inequality Violation is Possible.
NeuroQuantology 2008; 6(3):118.
Conte E. Khrennikov A.Y. Todarello O. Federici A. and
Zbilut J.P. On the Existence of Quantum Wave
Function and Quantum Interference Effects in
Mental States: An Experimental Confirmation
During Perception and Cognition in Humans.
NeuroQuantology 2009b; 7 (2): 204-212.
Dehlinger D. and Mitchell M. W. Entangled Photons,
Nonlocality and Bell Inequalities in the
Undergraduate Laboratory. Am. J. Phys 2002; 70:
9.
De A.U. and Pal D. Consciousness Model Significance
of Thought-Carrying Particles and Thought-
Retaining Particles in Quantum Measurement as
well as Cognitive Problem. NeuroQuantology 2005;
2: 111-118.
Deutsch D. and Ekert E. Quantum Computation.
Physics World 1998; 11: 47-52.
De Martini F, Sciarrino F. and Secondi V. Realization
of an Optimally Distinguishable Multiphoton
Quantum Superposition. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2005; 95:
240401.
De Martini F. Sciarrino F. and Vitelli C. The Genuine
Quantum Superposition vs Mixture of our QI-OPA
Schrdinger Cat was Demonstrated
Experimentally. 2007, ArXiv: 0804.0341v1 [quant-
ph].
De Sarlo L. Saers R. Bartalini S. Cataliotti L. Fallani L.
Fort C. Herrera I. and Inguscio M. From
Superradiant Rayleigh Scattering to Bragg
Scattering. Eur. Phys. Jour. 2005; 32: 167.
Eccles J.C. The Understanding of the Brain. McGraw
Hill, New York, 1973.
Eccles J.C. How the Self Controls its Brain. Springer-
Verlag, Berlin, 1994.
Einstein A. Podolski B. and Rosen N. Can Quantum
Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be
Considered Complete? Phys. Rev. 1935; 47: 777.
Eisert J. and Wiseman H. Quantum Aspects of Life,
In Nontrivial Quantum Effects in Biology: A
Skeptical Physicists View, World Scientific,
Singapore, 2007.
Ekert A.K. Quantum Cryptography Based on Bell's
Theorem. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1991; 67: 661-663.
Eisberg E. and Resnick R. Quantum Physics of Atoms,
Molecules, Solids, Nuclei and Particles. Wiley and
Sons, New York, 1974.
Erol M. Schrdinger Wave Equation and Function:
Basics and Concise Relations with
Consciousness/Mind. NeuroQuantology 2010; 8(1):
101-109.
www.neuroquantology.com
NeuroQuantology|September2010|Vol8|Issue3|Page390402
ErolM.,Quantumentanglement:fundamentalsandrelationswithconsciousness
Feinberg G. Possibility of Faster than Light Particles.
Phys. Rev. 1967; 159: 1089-1105.
Franson J.D. Bell Inequality for Position and Time.
Phys. Rev. Lett. 1989; 62: 2205-2208.
Gisin N. Scarini V. Tittel W. and Zbinden H. Optical
Tests of Quantum Nonlocality: from EPR-Bell Tests
Towards Experiments with Moving Observers.
Annals Phys. 2000; 9: 831841.
Hameroff S. and Penrose R. Orchestrated Reduction of
Quantum Coherence in Brain Microtubules: a
Model for Consciousness. Journal of Consciousness
Studies 1996; 3(1): 36-53.
Hari S. Psychons Could be Zero-Energy Tachyons.
NeuroQuantology 2008; 6(2): 152-160.
Horodecki R. Horodecki P. Horodecki M. and
Horodecki K. Quantum Entanglement, 2009,
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0702225v2
Inouye S. Chikkatur A.P. Stamper-Kurn D.M. Stenger
J. Pritchard D.E. Ketterle W. Superradiant Rayleigh
Scattering from a Bose-Einstein Condensate.
Science 1999; 285: 571.
Jibu M. and Yasue M. Quantum Brain Dynamics and
Consciousness: An Introduction. Advances in
Consciousness Studies, J.B. Publishers, 1995.
Khrennikov A.Y. The Principle of Supplementary: A
Contextual Probabilistic Viewpoint to
Complementary, the Interference of Probabilities,
and the Incompatibility of Variables in Quantum
Mechanics. Foundations of Physics 2005; 35(10):
1655 -1693.
Khrennikov AY. Nonlinear Schrdinger Equations
from Prequantum Classical Statistical Field Theory.
Physics Letters A 2006a; 357 (3): 171-176.
Khrennikov A.Y. To Quantum Mechanics Through
Random Fluctuations at the Planck Time Scale.
2006b, http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-
th/0604011.
Koshino K. and Shimizu A. Quantum Zeno Effect by
General Measurements. Physics Reports 2005;
412(4): 191-275.
Lotka A.J. Elements of Physical Biology. Reprinted by
Dover in 1956 as Elements of Mathematical
Biology, 1925.
Marshall W. Simon C. Penrose R. Bouwmeester D.
Towards Quantum Superpositions of a Mirror.
Phys. Rev. Lett. 2003; 91: 130401.
Malus E.L. Nouveau Bull Sci. Soc. Philomatique 1809;
1: 266; Mem. Soc. dArcueil 1809; 2: 260.
Matsukevich D.N. Maunz P. Moehring D.L. Olmschenk
S. and Monroe C. Bell Inequality Violation with two
Remote Atomic Qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2008; 100:
150404.
Moore M.G. Zobay O. and Meystre P. Quantum Optics
of a Bose-Einstein Condensate Coupled to a
Quantized Light Field. Phys. Rev. A 1999; 60: 1491.
Paz J.P. and Zurek W.H. EnvironmentInduced
Decoherence and the Transition from Quantum to
Classical, 72nd Les Houches Summer School on
Coherent Matter Waves, JulyAugust 1999,
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0010011v1.
Penrose R. Shadows of Mind: A Search for the Missing
Science of Consciousness. Oxford University Press,
Oxford, 1994.
Penrose R. The Emperors New Mind: Concerning
Computers, Minds and the Laws of Physics, Oxford
University Press, New York, 1989.
ISSN13035150
401
Reiger E, Hackermller L. Berninger M. and Arndt M.
Exploration of Gold Nanoparticle Beams for Matter
Wave Interferometry. Opt. Commun. 2006; 264:
326-332.
Riebe M. Hffner H. Roos C. et al., Deterministic
Quantum Teleportation with Atoms. Nature 2004;
429: 734-737.
Rowe M.A. Kielpinski D. Meyer V. Sackett C.A. Itano
W.M. Monroe C. and Wineland D.J. Experimental
Violation of a Bells Inequality with Efficient
Detection. Nature 2001; 409, 791-794.
Romero-Isart O. Juan M.L. Quidant R. and Cirac J.I.
Towards Quantum Superposition of Living
Organisms. 2009; arXiv:0909.1469.
Schrdinger E. Die Gegenwrtige Situation in der
Quantenmechanik", Naturwissenschaften 1935; 23,
807-812.
Schwartz J.M. Stapp H.P. and Beauregard M.
Quantum Physics in Neuroscience and Psychology:
a Neurophysical Model of Mind-Brain Interaction.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of
London B 2005; 360, 1458: 1309-1327.
Stapp H.P. Quantum Propensities and the Brain-Mind
Connection. Foundations of Physics 1991;
21(12):1451.
Stapp H.P. Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics,
Springer-Verlag, New York, 1993.
Stapp H.P. Why Classical Mechanics cannot Naturally
Accommodate Consciousness but Quantum
Mechanics can? Psyche 1995; 2: 5.
Stapp H.P. A Model of the Quantum-Classical and
Mind-Brain Connections, and of the Role of the
Quantum Zeno Effect. Physical Implementation of
Conscious Intent. 2009
http://repositories.cdlib.org/lbnl/LBNL-77E
Koshino K. and Shimizu A. Quantum Zeno Effect by
General Measurements. Physics Reports 2005;
412(4): 191-275.
Tegmark M. Importance of Quantum Decoherence in
Brain Processes. Physical Review E 2000; 61(4):
4194-4206.
Tittel W. Brendel J. Zbinden H. and Gisin N. Violation
of Bell Inequalities by Photons More Than 10 km
Apart. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1998; 81: 3563-3566.
Ursin R. Tiefenbacher F. Schmitt-Manderbach T.
Weier H. Scheidl T. Lindenthal M. Blauensteiner B.
Jennewein T. Perdigues J. Trojek P. mer B. Frst
M. Meyenburg M. Rarity J. Sodnik Z. Barbieri C.
Weinfurter H. and Zeilinger A. Quantum
Teleportation Link Across the Danube. Nature
2004; 430: 849.
Vitiello G. Quantum Dissipation and Information: A
Route to Consciousness Modeling.
NeuroQuantology 2003; 1: 266-279.
Von Neumann J. Measurement and Reversibility and
The Measuring Process, chapters V and VI in
Mathematische Grundlagen der
Quantenmechanik Berlin: Springer 1932; English
translation by R. T. Beyer Mathematical
Foundations of Quantum Mechanics Princeton
University Press: Princeton 1955.
Walker E.H. The Nature of Consciousness.
Mathematical Biosciences 1970; 7:131-178.
Watterich C. Quantum Entanglement and Interference
from Classical Statistics, 2008, arXiv:0809.2671v1.
Whitehead A.N. Adventures of Ideas. Cambridge
University Press, London, 1933.
www.neuroquantology.com
NeuroQuantology|September2010|Vol8|Issue3|Page390402 402
ErolM.,Quantumentanglement:fundamentalsandrelationswithconsciousness

Weihs G, Jennewein T, Simon C, Weinfurter H and

Zeilinger A. Violation of Bells Enequality under
Strict Einstein locality conditions. Phys. Rev. Lett.
1998; 81: 50395043.
Zbinden H, Brendel J, Gisin N. and Tittel W.
Experimental Test of Nonlocal Quantum
Correlation in Relativistic Configurations. Phys.
Rev. 2001; A63, 022111.
Zurek W.H. Pointer Basis of Quantum Apparatus: Into
what Mixture does the Wave Packet Collapse?
Physical Review 1981; D 24: 1516.
Zurek W.H. Environment-Induced Super Selection
Rules. Physical Review 1982; D 26: 1862.

ISSN13035150 www.neuroquantology.com