1

Is a Quantum Computer Based on the Design of the Human Brain Feasible?

May 3, 2022
 2

Abstract

The authors Johnson and Winlow in an academic research article (see the citation below) suggest

something very startling based on their investigation as Physiological Scientists of retinal function and

coordination in the brain. They speculate from their research of the retina and its function that the human

brain is a type of Quantum Phase Computer using phase ternary computation. Johnson and Winlow's

investigations on the deconstruction of brain neural network makes a case for the Human Brain as a type

of Quantum Phase Computer, the simplest of which is the Turing Machine today's computers are based

on. The authors go on to assert Turing-based mechanics fail to explain the coding of the retina or for that

matter the computation of intelligence. Their work suggests that coding in the brain neural network is

quantum-based wherein the quanta possess a temporal (time-based) variable and phase-base variable as

the basis for phase ternary computation as they found in the retina in their earlier work. In other work the

authors have pointed out that phase ternary computation is significantly more appropriate in modeling

nervous activity threshold as the trigger of CAP (computational action potential) consisting of three

phases – resting potential, threshold and the time-dependent refractory period, an analog variable as

natural neural networks and for that matter the human brain lacks a central clock which is a critical part of

current conventional computers. In the end the authors point out the possibility of creating a practical

Quantum Phase Computer using phase ternary computation based on the design and functioning of the

Human Brain. This brief paper provides an accessible explanation of is a Quantum Computer and

continues on to investigate the potential to create a new kind of Quantum Computer that uses the

functioning of the Human Brain as a template. In essence practical Quantum Computers that operate in

normal working environments and can be mass produced in quantity at an affordable price point

depending upon their application much like today’s computers that were launched by the IBM PC

revolution (Johnson & Winlow, 2012a).

 3

Part 1 – Background and Definitions

What is a Quantum Computer?

There is an enormous amount of interest in quantum computers and much in the news

about the potential and implications of quantum computing. What often is lacking is a clear and

succinct explanation of exactly what is a quantum computer which is a segway into what is

quantum computing. The normal explanation talks about “qubits” – “superposition,”

“entanglement” and so forth. That does no answer the “what it is” – just gives details of some

constituent parts (Goldfard & Melko, 2021).

The best way to gain an understanding of quantum computing is to contrast the “classic”

model our current computers are based on with the “quantum” model a quantum computer is

based on. The classic model encompasses the familiar “Turning Machine” model where binary

math is used, 8 bits are grouped in bytes and bytes in turn grouped to represent data. “Gates” are

easily implemented in classic model to create the decision-making scheme of Boolean Algebra –

AND, OR, NOR, NOT, NAND, NOR and XNOR.

The classic model our current computers are based on uses the very reliable “bit

mode” where a bit a bit is either on or off with its state persisting until the charge is removed or

state changed. Though very reliable and thoroughly mastered, the classic model is limited in that

it has to process a program sequentially and requires running portions of the program many times

until the conditions of a successful completion are met. Some readers will bring up “what about

parallel processing?” “Parallel processing” in the classic model uses multiple sequential parallel

paths that are moving forward in the same time period to process parts of a program (Preskill,

2021). Parallel processing is a powerful and effective method to speed up running programs.
 4

Unfortunately, eventually due to hardware and communication limitations parallel processing

can only scale up so far until a limit on speed and processing capacity in a given time period is

reached. At some point the classic model hits a wall where gaining any additional speed in

processing hits a wall (Preskill, 2021). Today’s most powerful exascale super computers based

on the classic model are unable to run simulations of large models in the physical sciences in

time periods that make sense. That is a good example of the limitations of the classic computer

model (Preskill, 2021).

Dr. Richard Feynman, the famous physicist who originated “string theory” in Physics

was also the originator of the quantum computer. In his 1981 lecture on the topic “Simulating

physics with computers” he floated the idea to simulate “quantum systems” with a “quantum

computer.” He went on to observe “that the number of computer elements required to simulate a

large physical system is only to be proportional to the space-time volume of the physical system”

(Preskill, 2021). Bottom line – our current digital (classical) computers are inadequate for the

task – there is no concise way to classically describe a quantum system consisting of many

particles. An in-depth description of how a quantum system could be described with a computer

Dr. Feynman stated required a different kind of computer – a quantum computer (Preskill, 2021).

The requirement for this new kind of computer stemmed from the nature of a quantum system.

Quantum systems exhibit “quantum mechanical effects” described for a large system of “R

particles” as given by a function called the “amplitude to find the particles at x1, x2…. xR, and

therefore because it has too many variables cannot be simulated with a normal computer.” For a

computer system to simulate a large physical system (e.g., quantum system) it has to possess the

number of computer elements proportional to the “space time volume” of that system. Quantum

computers are systems that take the “amplitude to find the particles at x1, x2…. xR… principle
 5

and use it to create a computing paradigm of a very different nature than classical computers

(Preskill, 2021). It is actually quite easy to understand – our knowledge of Physics informs us

that certain types of particles can carry charges and exhibit characteristics that are measurable to

determine their state at a given point in time. The “beautiful twist” that makes a quantum

computer work is that the particles can be carriers of two states (or three or four or more…)

simultaneously that in essence represent the “0” and “1” of bits in classical computing. A

quantum computer’s basic unit is called a “qubit.” A qubit is “two-level quantum mechanical”

construct where the two states in the particle used as the basic part of data for a quantum

computer just as a bit is the basic part of data for a classical computer (Goldfarb & Melko, 2021).

“Two-level” or “superposition” is the key with a qubit. The amplitude of the wave emanating

from the particle that holds the qubit’s values in the two levels can be measured and values of 0

and 1 derived through a well-defined system of probabilities. “Superposition” also is linear in its

nature when quantum values are summed the results are always valid quantum results (Goldfarb

& Melko, 2021). Unlike classic computers which are limited by the hardware

(processingmemory/storage) available to hold the 0s and 1s of bits, the particles holding the two-

level state of the qubit can be infinite in number which creates a time-space limited only by the

speed of light and related physical characteristics. In essence a quantum computer is simply a

computer that is based on the quantum system which for our purposes is unlimited in its capacity

whereas we all very familiar with the limitations of the capacity of the classic computers we use

daily.

Because qubits are linear as superimposed, they can be “entangled” to create the logical gates

and circuits to carry out the usual Boolean mathematics, branching and decision making required
 6

to construct and employ useful algorithms through programming using high level language

abstraction (Goldfarb & Melko, 2021). Though currently there are limitations with the stability

of qubits and in turn quantum computers progress is being made. Quantum mechanics informs

us that the number of qubits that can be superimposed and entangled can scale to unimaginable

levels and that the hyper-exponential nature of a computer founded on a quantum system allows

simulations and processing in real time that is impossible with our classic computers.

Part 2 - Feasibility of a Computer Based on the Human Brain Design

A Different and Compelling Model of Computation in the Human Brain and Neurons

The Basis for the Model

Luigi Galvani, the Italian Scientist that investigated many types of electrochemical

phenomena ascribed nerve impulses as one of them. This was accepted thinking for over 250

years and inhibited the consideration of computation in the human brain. This assumption led to

the belief that communications between neurons is ionically based electrical and the basis of

computation in the brain (Johnson & Winlow, 2021a). What followed were models of

computation and intelligence using this paradigm leading to the design/employment of neural

networks in the computer sciences and most recently AI (artificial intelligence) in use currently

(Johnson & Winlow, 2021a).

The current models of nerve conductivity rest on the original research of two UK Scientists

– Hodgkin and Huxley with their pioneering work in 1952 on the “action potential” in neurons.

Hodgkin and Huxley led to the peak of action potential being the temporal marker of computing

and the propagation of action potential explained by cable theory. Cable theory is the traditional

model of how impulses along nerves and in neurons and are detected and quantified by
 7

measuring electrical activity (Johnson & Winlow, 2021a). Though not widely as accepted at

present research by physiologists Johnson and Winlow assert that action potentials in nerves

throughout the body and importantly in the brain are not adequately explained by cable theory –

there is simply not enough electrical activity to account for computation in the brain by cable

theory. Johnson and Winlow’s research points to an alternative explanation of what constitutes

action potentials - their association with underlying pressure pulses known as solitons. Their

research has found that action potential is constantly in the company of a synchronized coupled

soliton pressure pulse in the cell membrane of the neuron when combined constitute the action

potential pulse which starts channel opening and triggers very rapid computation in the neural

network. This a critical concept given the multiple forms and plasticity of action potentials

(Johnson & Winlow, 2021a).

Cognitive scientists are suggesting that memories are molecularly stored in neurons and

after storage weighed plastic synaptic changes occurred and in turn stored in persistent memory.

In neurons computation as it relates to action potential initiation occurs at threshold and memory

is reinforced after learning (Johnson & Winlow, 2021b). The computers we work with daily

work in nano or microseconds whereas neural networks in the brain and elsewhere in the body

have been demonstrated to work in milliseconds and memory is either volatile or more

permanently is a storage medium (e.g. SSD [solid state drive], conventional hard drive, etc.)

(Johnson & Winlow, 2021a). In our computers processing is carried out by grouping bits into

bytes and implemented by circuits into gates to establish the logic to execute programs that

adheres to the Turing Machine paradigm (Preskill, 2021). Computation in neurons and

consequently in the brain is carried out using a very different scheme based on Johnson and
 8

Winlow’s research that is gaining more acceptance by physiologists as time goes on. The

observation that neural networks work in milliseconds tracks with Johnson and Winlow’s

research in that computation in neural networks follow a different path than cable theory

(Johnson & Winlow, 2021a). The sheer quantity and variety of processing in the brain and the

observation that movement in its neural networks is slower than our classic computers points to a

very different type of computation in the brain at a far greater level of efficiency. There is

mounting evidence for the soliton pressure pulse in neuronal membranes termed the “Action

Potential Pulse (APPulse).” The ion channels are activated by the soliton with channels adding

entropy to the pulse – the speed of the pulse being defined by static membrane components. The

temporal plasticity of membrane transmission happens at a far slower rate than in the ionic

exchanges represented in the work of Hodgkin and Huxley (Johnson & Winlow, 2021a). As a

consequence, temporal error is minimized in the APPulse. What follows is deconstructing the

structural components of the APPulse into its computational component parts forms

“Computational Action Potential” or CAP. The CAP is a mathematical representation of a

ternary quantum pulse if two pulses collide with the threshold crossing a refractory period the

threshold is annulled (Johnson & Winlow, 2021b). The CAP importantly is a mathematical

depiction of a quantum ternary pulse when a collision occurs between two pulses if a threshold

crosses a refractory period the threshold is canceled. The CAP is valid equally for ternary

quantum computation by traditional Hodgkin and Huxley or the APPulse models. The difference

between the two resides in the temporal precision of successive impulses at a factor up to ten

thousand times greater with the pressure pulse than Hodgkin and Huxley and their cable theory

(Johnson & Winlow, 2021b). Prominently the CAP assumes that the temporal pulse starts on
 9

activation and not from the spike peak. Johnson and Winlow’s research is strong evidence that

quantum computation is occurring in the brain activated by a temporal pressure pulse (pulses =

quanta) and the traditional model of an electrical spike as the activator of computation in the

brain is inaccurate (Johnson & Winlow, 2021b).

Quantum computation networks are very different than the classic model of the

computers of various types and purposes we use daily (Goldfarb & Melko, 2021). One big

difference is quantum computation does not employ an external clock. Quantum computation

requires input to achieve consistent derived output values compared to Turing (classic)

computation where clock speed is used to synchronize input with output (Johnson & Winlow,

2021b). In the classic model “gating” represents a single command to be executed within its set

time allocated among the input and output orchestrated by an external clock. In a complex

network (a classic computer bus is an excellent example) flow in a network is defined node to

node by exact timing between the nodes that is precisely the same and the outputs always

synchronized to the speed of the system clock. Binary computation in a classic (Turing as we use

know it) is divided between input nodes that hold the binary values of 0 and 1 respectively

outputting a value of 0 (Johnson & Winlow, 2021b). The system grants time to react to input

nodes holding 0 and 1 and time used for the “gated” node to react to input based on a set

program “that defines the output from these specific inputs as being (0).” Termination time in the

classic system is allocated for “gated” output to the exit node. In the current neural models on

our classic computers as used in AI (Artificial Intelligence) for example, timing latencies are

fixed and organized so that events in the flow uniform and equivalent to system clock speed

effectively synchronizing each command (Johnson & Winlow, 2021b). The definition of the
 10

Turing-type machine our classic computers are based on follows this system clock-based schema

and is used in all practical applications of the computers we work with daily. Furthermore,

because all synchronizations are performed by an external (system) clock and are therefore

inapplicable to a brain neural network (Johnson & Winlow, 2021b). A non-Turing quantum

machine such as the neural network in the input flow (quanta [pulses]) flow moves to a point of

convergence and consequently computation in the network and timing between nodes dictated by

the speed of the quanta flow between nodes. At the convergence point computation is dependent

upon the quantal information (in a base – binary, ternary, base10, etc.), the mechanism at the

convergence point, and “the timing of interference between quanta” (Johnson & Winlow,

2021b). In a binary-based Turning-type machine the quanta are fixed at the convergence

(computation) point by the system clock speed. The timing in a neural network in a brain is

determined not by a clock rather the speed of the neurons. The flow of inputs in the brain’s

neural network for the action potential or APPulse are determined by the threshold to refractory

periods of each quantum respectively – computation at the convergence point is “defined by the

timing of each quantum and how the interact on collision.” The collision between threshold and

refractory periods with both action potential and APPulse results in cancellation of the

succeeding quanta (Johnson & Winlow, 2021b). Though the rules may differ in different

quantum computation systems this is a fundamental process and applies to all temporal and base

computation in a neural network. It must be kept in mind that the process is not simple in

neurons that compute by differential frequencies (Johnson & Winlow, 2021b).

 11

How Computation Works in the Brain

As Johnson and Winlow write - “When two asynchronous CAPs (Computational Action

Potential – mathematical depiction of a quantum ternary) pulse collide the temporal component

of the refractory period of the leading CAP will annul the second CAP.” It is ditto for two action

potentials. They go on to write that it follows that CAPs are “therefore ternary [three part]

information computing temporally according to collisions” (Johnson & Winlow, 2021b).

Considering temporal computation is key in the brain neural network where timing is not by a

clock as with our current classical computers. It allows temporal computation resulting in

changes in frequency across the network. The dynamic structure of actual neural networks in the

brain operated by phase ternary computation is based on pressure pulses/solitons (self-

reinforcing wave packets) that are stable in form and over time providing the basis in the brain

for computation. The phase shift in the collisions between pressure pulses/solitons in the brain

aligned temporally result in massive parallel computation in microseconds. The quantum levels

are massive in number, stable, persistent and fully capable of refreshment and reinforcement

(Johnson & Winlow, 2021b).

As Johnson and Winlow write “that the fundamental basis of nervous communication is

derived from a pressure pulse/soliton capable of computation with sufficient temporal precision

to overcome any processing errors” that is currently one of the biggest challenges in quantum

computing. The computation process in the brain is based on temporal computation that effects

changes in frequency across the brain’s neural network and is iterative. This type of temporal

computation overcomes one the biggest challenges of quantum computing – error correction.

Additionally, the computation occurs at a temperature within the range for humans and their
 12

environments – a really big deal. The question follows is it feasible to create a general-purpose

quantum computer based on the design of the human brain?

Potential Quantum Ternary Computer Designs

The potential design of a quantum computer based on quantum ternary computation that

is becoming gradually accepted as how computation occurs in the brain is feasible because of

advances in material science and engineering. Due to the slowing of advances in classic

computing new types of computing are being very actively pursued. Most prominently are

quantum computers and another type of computer paradigm is neuromorphic (Mehonic &

Kenyon, 2022). “Neuromorphic” was originated by Carver Mead at the California of Technology

in the late 1980s and describes systems and devices that imitate some functions of natural neural

systems and in essence moves to creation of analog computers (Mehonic, & Kenyon, 2022).

“Neuromorphic” computers follow the traditional Hodgkin and Huxley model of electrical spikes

in neurons. A quantum ternary computer has a neuromorphic basis but then goes in a different

direction. As was written in Part 1 of this paper current quantum computers use “qubits” to

represent two-states (two-level) quantum bits as classical computers uses “bits.” The difference

with a quantum ternary computer is that it is based on “qutrits” - three-states (three-level)

quantum which keeps it in the digital realm as with quantum computers that use qubits. (Roberts,

2021). Qutrits lend themselves nicely to the creation of “universal quantum circuits” that can run

arbitrary algorithms. The logic gates produced enable pairs of qutrits to interact with each other

with the three different levels produced by the phase shift of the solitons at the point of

convergence in the CAP resulting in computation (Roberts, 2021). The outputs of CAPs create

ongoing entanglement allowing computation to scale to a level that is temporal and massively
 13

parallel (Johnson & Winlow, 2021a). The measurement of one of the pairs of qutrits as a result

of their entanglement ensures that their state is passed on to another qutrit and so forth until a

particular program ends (Roberts, 2021). In sum, qutrits and qubits afford computer scientists

and engineers the ability to create quantum algorithms and programming environments that

leverage the processing power of quantum computers and make it accessible to software

engineers and programmers that work in many fields. In the end using qutrits may offer some

advantages over qubits because of their three-state nature.

One potential way to create a quantum ternary computer can be based on the efforts of a

team of engineers at Penn State University. Their focus is on using graphene, a carbon-based

cutting-edge material that is gaining more and more uses including creating artificial neural

networks (Barkan, 2020). Graphene is a single plane of sp2 carbon bonded atoms arranged in a

hexagonal lattice. Graphene refers to material that can build up to ten layers to create dense

electrically conductive structures with excellent heat dissipation (Barkan, 2020). Graphene

neural networks are seeking to achieve the energy and processing efficiencies of the human

brain. Graphene neural networks as with synapses in the brain are reconfigurable by applying a

brief electrical field to the one atomic thick layer of carbon atoms of the graphene sheets

potentially comprising the graphene computer. Moving data from memory to logic and back

again eats up a lot of energy and slows computing speed. Like the brain the graphene neural

networks do not have to be differentiated between processing and memory resulting a very

efficient resource utilization plus low power consumption (Barkan, 2020). The Penn State Team

has created simple graphene field effect transistors to precisely control a large number of

memory states (Barkan, 2020). The field effect transistors can serve as phase shift oscillators
 14

creating the phase differences as the basis for CAPs and convergence for quantum ternary

computation in a graphene computer. A graphene computer based on artificial neural networks

using quantum ternary computation would be very light, compact and scalable for applications

that could range from tiny embedded to applications now covered by tablets, laptop computers,

industrial control, servers and so on. Graphene can be potentially layered to build extremely

powerful and reliable quantum computers tailored for their applications.

Conclusion

Our current classic computers are little doubt one of greatest technical achievements in

the history of humanity. Our networks, software, devices and embedded computers have become

increasingly more powerful, faster, useful and ubiquitous. Leaving home without our

smartphone is unthinkable for most of us. Our technology generally relies on computers and

computing but behind the scenes a major challenge is developing – our classical computer

paradigm is beginning to experience challenges with its speed and scalability to meet our

everevolving computation goals.

We are accustomed to the progression of Moore’s Law with ever increasing processing

power and lower cost with our classic computers – that is gradually coming to an end. The

answer to the challenge is quantum computers which are being aggressively worked on globally

and offer the promise to allow computation to scale to an unimaginable level overcoming current

limitation we have in areas from AI to simulations of large physical systems. Technical problems

are holding quantum computing back (Mehonic & Kenyon, 2022). Two challenges are

particularly daunting – maintained a readable state for the subatomic particles/atoms that hold the

two-level state of qubits which requires maintaining supporting hardware at very low
 15

temperatures and error correction. Assuring that the results of quantum computing processing

are correct is a huge challenge (Mehonic& Kenyon, 2022).

A ternary quantum computer based on the design of the human brain offers an alternative

that can operate at normal temperatures not requiring a special environment, uses materials to

create its neural networks like graphene that enables the “bits” in qutrits to be maintained in a

stable state, can be packaged and distributed from thumb-sized computers to compact server

packages in levels of power tailored to the quantum computer’s application. A material like

graphene can be fashioned into a computer using existing manufacturing technologies. Error

correction is handled by a pulse/soliton capable of computation using sufficient temporal

precision to overcome any processing error based on the design of the neurons in the brain. This

design can overcome many of challenges with quantum computing and may be take the role the

IBM PC took in classic computing in quantum computing.

References

Bova, F., Goldfarb, A., & Melko, R. (2021). Quantum computing is coming. What can it do?

Harvard Business Review Digital Articles, 1–6. https://search-

ebscohostcom.ezproxy.umgc.edu/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=heh&AN=151711226&site=edslive&scope=site

Barkan, Terrance. (2020). Graphene-based memory resistors show promise for brain-based

computing. Graphene Updates.

https://www.thegraphenecouncil.org/blogpost/1501180/359621/Graphene-basedmemory-

resistors-show-promise-for-brain-based-computing

IEEE Computer Society (2021). Quantum Technology - Scaling for Applicability. The
 16

International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering – QCE21.

https://www.computer.org/publications/tech-news/research/quantum-technology-

scalingfor-applicability?source=homepage

Johnson, Andrew S., & Winlow, W. (2021a). Does the brain function as a quantum phase

computer using phase ternary computation?. Frontiers of Physiology.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2021.572041

Johnson, Andrew S., & Winlow, W. (2021b). Nerve Impulses Have Three Interdependent

Functions: Communication, Modulation And Computation. Researchgate.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352309033_Nerve_Impulses_Have_Three_Inte

rdependent_Functions_Communication_Modulation_And_Computation

Mehonic, A., & Kenyon, A.J. Brain-inspired computing needs a master plan. Nature 604, 255–

260 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-04362-w

Preskill, John. (2021). Quantum computing 40 years later. ArXiv.org - Cornell University.

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2106.10522

Roberts, J. (2021). Going Beyond Qubits: New Study Demonstrates Key Components for a

Qutrit-Based Quantum Computer. Berkley Lab.

https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2021/04/26/going-beyond-quibits/
 17

Critique

The paper should include a description of the state-of-the-art in your technology

In this article the author tried to know about the feasibility of Quantum Computer, Based
on the Design of the Human Brain.in simple word, Quantum deep learning neural networks. The
author investigates the potential to create a new kind of Quantum Computer that uses the
functioning of the Human Brain as a template i.e. Deep learning based Quantum Computer. The
author explained the different view but did not mentioned the state of art in the given article
A neural network is a data processing model that is based on the design of mammalian
brains in nature, which are made up of neurons connected by many connections. Natural learning
in the brain causes these neurons to develop unique linkages, transformations, and mappings.
These neurons, known as units, nodes, or perceptron in computer science, are artificially
produced neurons, AI- based Quantum Computer state of art.

A discussion of where the sources that you read believe the technology is heading in the near
future

Litt, A., Eliasmith, C., Kroon, F. W., Weinstein, S., & Thagard, P. (2006). Is the brain a quantum
computer?. Cognitive Science, 30(3), 593-603.

Zhang, Y., & Ni, Q. (2021). Design of quantum neuron model for quantum neural networks.
Quantum Engineering, 3(3), e75.

Kamruzzaman, A., Alhwaiti, Y., Leider, A., & Tappert, C. C. (2019, March). Quantum deep
learning neural networks. In Future of information and communication conference (pp. 299-
311). Springer, Cham.

Hu, F., Wang, B. N., Wang, N., & Wang, C. (2019). Quantum machine learning with D‐wave
quantum computer. Quantum Engineering, 1(2), e12.

Neumann, N., Phillipson, F., & Versluis, R. (2019). Machine learning in the quantum era.
Digitale Welt, 3(2), 24-29.

A discussion of how this technology will affect the choices you would make if you were making
purchase recommendations for a client.

Because of quantum computing's exponential potential, quantum based learning is a hot

topic, with certain systems promising quantum speedups. a quantum neural network architecture
for binary and multi-class classification. QuClassi encodes data with fewer qubits and builds the
quantum circuit, iteratively pushing it to the quantum platform for the best states, thanks to a
 18

quantum differentiation function and a hybrid quantum-classic design. We run extensive tests on
quantum simulators and IBM-quantum Q's platform, as well as assessing performance on
IonQ.QuClassi outperforms state-of-the-art quantum-based solutions Tensorflow-Quantum and
QuantumFlow by up to 53.75 percent and 203.00 percent for binary and multi-class
classifications, respectively, according to the evaluation results. QuClassi delivers comparable
performance with 97.37 percent less parameters than typical deep neural networks.