All inquiries 02 / OUR INQUIRY · 02
Could a specific quantum process contribute to the physical conditions of experience? We begin with a reaction we can calculate, then ask what would connect it to neural function.
Explore the reactionEXPLORATORY RESEARCH PROGRAM · GRAVITON
THE RESEARCH AIM
Our long-term aim is to develop and test a physical account of how quantum processes might contribute to conscious experience. The first task is to identify a mechanism whose contribution can be measured independently of the larger claim.
Spin-dependent chemistry offers one candidate. A magnetic interaction can change a pair of electrons’ spin dynamics and, in a suitable reaction, alter the proportions of its products. The decisive question is whether a characterized reaction produces a signal that survives the constraints of a real neural environment.
We keep two other lines of work distinct: the foundation’s circadian timing hypothesis, and the externally proposed microtubule and objective-reduction mechanisms. Similar language across these programs does not establish a shared cause.
CONCEPT GUIDE
01 / EIGHT-STATE SPIN-CHEMISTRY MODEL
Two electron spins interact with one spin-½ nucleus. Explore how field strength, orientation, reaction lifetime, and relaxation change the final singlet and triplet yields.
Loading the reproducible calculation grid…
Specified demonstration: A/(2π) = diag(2, 2, 4) MHz. Parameters are chosen for an inspectable model, with no fit to a protein, neuron, or conscious state. The controls select calculated grid points; no interpolated values are presented as new solutions. “pp” means percentage points of product yield.
Spin operators are dimensionless with eigenvalues ±½. B is in tesla; γe = 1.76085963 × 10¹¹ rad s⁻¹ T⁻¹ is the positive gyromagnetic magnitude used here. A is in rad s⁻¹, while the controls report A/(2π) in MHz. The bold I in the interaction is the nuclear-spin operator; In in the initial state is the nuclear identity. The field lies in the x–z plane.
The initial full state is ρ(0) = |S⟩⟨S| ⊗ In/2. The nucleus is unpolarized. We evolve an 8 × 8 density matrix, with equal singlet and triplet reaction rates k > 0:
σja is the Pauli operator along axis a on electron j. Under this convention an isolated electron’s Bloch vector relaxes at rate Γ. Trace decays as exp(−kt). The relaxation law is stipulated for this demonstration. Changing Γ compares regimes within one quantum model; it is not a comparison with every classical or biochemical alternative.
The calculation omits nuclear Zeeman terms, exchange, electron–electron dipolar coupling, molecular rotation, additional nuclei, escape, and back reactions. Equal reaction rates simplify the dynamics. A candidate-specific model must justify these choices or extend them. Reaction master equations also have validity conditions; Fay and colleagues analyze corrections beyond a simple treatment.
PS projects onto the electron singlet sector; PT = I − PS. Both yields use the same rate k. Their sum checks conservation within this closed, two-channel model.
02 / THE MEASUREMENT GAP
A fractional change in yield says little about a cell until we know how many pairs form, which product matters, how quickly it clears, and what concentration affects its target.
x is product concentration; FRP is pair-formation flux in concentration per unit time; kclear is a first-order clearance rate. The steady-state relation assumes that flux and clearance stay fixed while yield changes. These parameters have not been established for a native neural candidate in this proposal.
A specified reaction model gives ΦS.
Identify the product, formation flux, and clearance.
Measure its effect on a named channel or cellular target.
Choose a defined task and separate sensory, motor, and reporting effects.
Each transition needs its own evidence. A downstream signal alone can hide several unknown factors inside one fitted gain. Independent chemical and physiological measurements are what make the pathway testable.
EVIDENCE / PREPARATION MATTERS
Xu and colleagues reported magnetic sensitivity in purified European-robin cryptochrome 4. This supports investigation of the studied molecular pathway. Human CRY1/CRY2 and a neural environment require their own characterization. [1]
Kutta and colleagues found low FAD-binding affinity in Type II cryptochromes, challenging a simple transfer of avian photochemistry to mammals. A neural proposal needs a measurement of native cofactor occupancy and a specified formation mechanism. [2]
Human CRY2 expressed in flies supported a reported light-dependent magnetic response. Later fly work reported cellular and circadian responses under different field conditions. Large T-maze and geotaxis experiments found no behavioral effect in their tested paradigms. These studies do not measure the same endpoint or use interchangeable preparations. [3] [4] [5]
The behavioral dispute continued in a 2024 comment and reply. Both are included below; neither alone resolves the disagreement. [6]
Meng and colleagues reported optical detection and radio-frequency control of spin chemistry in flavoproteins. Purified or engineered proteins and controlled optical and magnetic conditions make this a methods advance to study. They do not establish an endogenous mechanism in human neural tissue. [7]
RESEARCH NOTE 01 / A QUANTITATIVE NEXT STEP
Our proposed protocol asks whether two selective perturbations producing the same reaction-yield change also produce the same current change when formation flux, clearance, and the calibrated neuronal response remain matched.
The note derives a concentration and current prediction, carries uncertainty through the calculation, and states when an upper bound would exclude a meaningful effect. Its numerical example is explicitly synthetic; a native molecular candidate has not yet been selected.
Read the protocol and explore the modelPARALLEL STUDY / CIRCADIAN TIMING
Our Circadian Gating of Temporal Integration proposal asks whether biological phase and sleep pressure alter the conditions in which neurons integrate information. The physiological theory can be tested before a spin-chemical contribution is identified.
Rodent clock-neuron experiments connect redox rhythms to excitability. Human TMS/EEG work also reports circadian variation in cortical excitability, while acknowledging incomplete separation from time awake. Neither study closes the pathway to subjective duration. [8] [9]
A distinctive proposed test concerns clock alignment: does greater dispersion of local cellular phases increase timing variability under otherwise comparable conditions? Local clock alignment would first need measurement in a suitable cellular or animal preparation. A human phase marker is not a direct measure of every neural clock.
Temporal discrimination, prospective duration, remembered duration, and repeatability are separate outcomes. Increased remembered duration can occur without improved resolution in the tested task. Choose the endpoint before analyzing the data. [10]
SEPARATE HYPOTHESIS / MICROTUBULES & ORCH OR
Hameroff and Penrose’s Orch OR proposal associates microtubule quantum processes with a proposed gravitational objective reduction and conscious events. Its physical commitments differ from the reaction model above. [11]
EG refers to gravitational self-energy associated with the difference between specified superposed mass distributions. Cellular ATP or metabolic energy cannot simply be substituted for it.
A test needs a physiologically populated candidate state, measured dynamics in its environment, a defensible mass-distribution calculation, and a signature distinguishing the proposed reduction from ordinary decoherence and cellular effects.
Work on optical behavior in isolated tubulin and microtubule preparations, and a mouse study reporting delayed anesthetic loss of righting after a microtubule-targeting intervention, warrant further study. Neither intervention uniquely selects objective reduction or explains experience. [12] [13]
RESEARCH PLAN / DECISIONS THAT CHANGE THE MODEL
Check conservation and limiting cases, compare independent solvers, and reproduce a published case with documented parameters. The demonstration here is a computational starting point.
Name the species, cell, compartment, reaction, energy source, and relevant abundance. If no reaction exists under the proposed conditions, redirect the mechanism.
Specify field, orientation, or resonance dependence before testing. Control heating, induced currents, vibration, illumination, and delivered power. An isotope effect also needs controls for ordinary chemical changes.
Calibrate the product’s physiological effect independently. A selective perturbation should remove the predicted signal; restoring its mediator should recover it. A broad cryptochrome knockout does not isolate the proposed spin reaction.
Preregister the main outcome, use independent biological replicates, blind conditions, and seek replication. A precise null result can exclude the specified effect. Task accuracy, synchrony, and an anesthetic reflex are not interchangeable measures of experience.
METHODS / REPRODUCIBILITY
The browser selects from a precomputed grid of the stated eight-state model. Each point is obtained by solving the integrated density-matrix equation. The downloadable generator records parameters, checks, and numerical tolerances. A second calculation evolves the density matrix directly in time to test representative solutions.
Verification results will load with the calculation grid.
Requires Python, NumPy, and SciPy. This is an idealized demonstration of specified spin dynamics, not a fitted biological prediction or a new theory of consciousness. The evidence discussion includes 2026 work; it does not backdate those findings into the October 2025 circadian essay.
Updated
SECOND INQUIRY / OPEN RESEARCH
Our next task is to select and characterize a molecular candidate, then test a quantitative prediction of its physiological effect.
Return to the spin laboratory