To our present knowledge (but there is little doubt about) both Gravity and Quantumness are fundamental and general phenomena, meaning that their laws govern anything & everything. (The third such is Relativity, and as far as we know any further is at best such a general philosophy as e.g. Causality.) But Gravity and Quantumness, as well in their old forms as in the present best ones contradict each other.

          But General Laws of Physics must not contradict each other. So of they contradict, they are incorrect. (At least one of them; but most probably both.) Very probably the way out would be Unification. Gravity & Relativity contradicted each other until 1916; then Einstein unified them, and the unified theory, General Relativity, is free of at least self-contradiction. Similarly, Relativity and Quantumness contradicted each other, but then they were unified c. 1947 as Quantum Field Theory. The unification was gradual, with such names as Dirac, Tomonaga &c., and the present status is a matter of argumentation. QFT does give infinities; but in some cases they are renormalisable, i.e. the infinities "can be removed". Also a lot of Field Theories, quite respectable in nonrelativistic limit, are unrenormalisable. Now this may mean that QFT is an erroneous Unification; but also that Relativity rules out the unrenormalisable Field Theories. This latter is the opinion of the overwhelming majority of QFT experts; and it may quite be correct. Anyway, Relativity rules out an acceleration to FTL velocities, and this "prediction" is generally accepted (with some sad feeling) by physicists.

          Quantumness and Gravity are also in contradiction in their original forms (as I told), but up to now the unification is not ready. The need of it and the reasons why it has not been made are the topics of this series (which will be being unfold or in Latin simply evolving gradually in several steps. The main reason to write these sequences is Advertisement; either of my own or of my viewpoint about. my feeling is that we are not far from the unification (see e.g. Refs. [1]-[7]), but surely we are not yet ready.

          I must state that (Unified) Quantum Gravity is/will be not the (Final?) Theory of Everything. The latter (sought by many, claimed by few and made by none so far) would be a Unification of Gravity, Quantumness & Relativity, a theory containing 3 fundamental constants, G, h & c, in a theory free of self-contradiction. I am less ambitious (more realistic?) for looking the third and last dual Unification, a Theory of G & h. You will see that it is a task enough in itself: and it would have quite enough new predictions in itself.

          Now let us proceed. The eight part is the end of the first hopes, and a massive Outlook. With that I have reached Present.

 

 

GRAVITY VERSUS/AND QUANTUMNESS, PART 8

 

AFTER THE FALSE DAWN, FROM THE SECOND HALF OF '90'S

 

B. Lukács

 

CRIP RMKI, Theory Dept., & President of Matter Evolution Subcommittee of HAS

 

H-1525 Bp. 114. Pf. 49, Budapest Hungary

 

lukacs@rmki.kfki.hu

 

ABSTRACT

            A brief overview is given, from the middle of 90’s to present. The false dawn was not followed by daylight; but it may still come.

 

1. INTRODUCTION

            Intellectuels seldom can remain totally independent of the opinions of Society. And in Hungary from the beginning of XXth century the society is deeply divided. We saw an example from High Physics in Part 2. However after 1992 this has reached a degree known only on Fiji Islands. There are two blocks of cca. equal strength, and members like almost everybody within their own block (even their enemies), while hate, slander and/or threaten those of the opposite block (including their own friends and allies). Explanations are being looked for; with hardly a result up to now. This makes scientific cooperation hard; while each physicist, at least after the actual internecine argumentation, of course can see the lies of his own side as well.

            This situation, of course, makes Unification of Fundamental Theories even more difficult.

 

2. THE STATE OF ART IN 1995

            Diósi was fighting his University antagonists at his second trial (I told his first in the previous Part). For this, however, he had to modify his tactics. So our cooperation became weaker for a while (even independently of the above mentioned circumstances).

            I wrote a Conference contribution in 1995; you can read it as [1]. The conference was about trial/tripolar structures on various levels of Organisation/Evolution; and Fundamental Physics with G, c and h shows such a structure even if we do not yet know the True Theory with the trial structure. One Chapter is about the unification of Gravity and Relativity.

            I was working is Year 1996 mainly in Heavy Ion Physics & Meteoritics. And in 1997 my Quantum Gravity coauthor formulated such a (political) accusation against me before a witness which was then rather dangerous (although fairly high probability was for no consequences; as it really turned out). My only possible way out was to break up any personal contact, which I did immediately.

            I will not go into details; anyway fellow physicists in East Timor or in Japan (or even in Fiji) would not fully understand the mental state of Hungarian intellectuels in 1997. Instead I turn to fiction literature. Good biochemist & congenial novelist Isaac Asimov in Part 5 of Foundation [2] describes a political situation in Terminus about XXIIIrd millenium AD. Dramatis personae are: Jorane Sutt, Secretary to the Mayor of Terminus, and Master Trader Hober Mallow of Smyrno (subject State to Terminus). Witness is the Mayor. During the negotiation at a point Sutt uses the Smyrno descent of Mallow to get a better position, but Mallow is adamant and defines his attitude by telling: "Your sly little hints ... aren't going to panic me into licking [your] spittle". Exactly my own view.

            Then I concentrated on Meteoritics.

 

3. THE STATE OF ART NOW

            I do not know if Diósi is now ready with (Newtonian) Quantum Gravity; I guess common friends would have talked about it. However, as told earlier, lots of consequences are known even in the present state of art.

            A system larger than M³R=h²/G cannot have a deterministic wave function Y. Until the full (G+h) formalism is ready, you may have various approaches. You may tell that there is a Y, but it has no sharp values. You may tell that the system does not have a Y, but still does have a density operator.

            If the system is well above M³R=h²/G, then you may simply forget about QM. Of course, Quantisation still acts, resulting in an anomalous Brownian motion ([3], [4], [5]). Even lifeless objects move to and fro, without external influence. According to [3] a dumb-bell of inert metal of 1 m length and 1 kg mass, put onto an orbital laboratory, would make a random change of orientation of amplitude ~2" (and applying [6] to the problem we guessed a similar but somewhat smaller amplitude in 1989; we never seriously recalculated the result because nobody wanted to put any dumb-bell onto any orbital laboratory so far).

            Well, the normal Brownian motion is also something that a lifeless grain moves to and fro under the microscope; indeed, when Brown discovered the effect in 1827, one interpretation was Universal Vis Vitalis. However normal Brownian motion is caused by the surrounding medium; individual molecules are kicking the grain, as it was guessed by some and finally has been proven by Einstein [7]. But now there is no external influence on the dumb-bell! The motion is a consequence of Fundamental Laws of Physics, and would happen even far from anything; in vacuo.

            This "random walk" seems to be a consequence of a "struggle of Gravity & Quantumness". However this would be an "idealistic" explanation. In Physics there are no struggles and no contradictions. Also, macroscopic bodies do not have Y's, so we cannot tell anymore that Nature cuts randomly Y to avoid its extreme spread. A complete Unified (G+h) theory will tell us the Cause (and then the (G+c+h) theory will give another explanation again); but it is a consequence of the stochastic nature of Quantum Gravity.

            Penrose (and Hameroff) started to use the idea of Objective Reduction (noch dazu, Orchestrated Objective Reduction) from 1994 upwards. I give here two references, [8] & [9], from amongst many. Their common point is that they cite either [4] or [10], but never [6]. Now we know that the reduction condition of [4] is incorrect (for the observational evidences see [11] & [12]), while [10] is a review, not choosing between the reduction mechanisms. The Penrose-Hameroff view utilizes Orch OR to explain thinking or neural processes or so, via "quantum computation". I will briefly touch this problem in the next Chapter. Now I only note that Tegmark is against this view [13], although Hagan, Hameroff & Tuszynski gave some answers in due course [14]. None of the theories is my baby; so here I only note that one can indeed not expect a permanent Quantum Coherency for a big part of a neuron with a million coherently incoming Na⁺ ions [13] even if Tegmark's 10^-20 s far underestimates the characteristic time (below 1 eV you cannot expect anything shorter than 10^-14 s in electromagnetic processes); but quantum coherency amongst incoming Na⁺ ions does not seem to be necessary for thinking processes.

            And then we more or less arrived at Present.

 

4. OUTLOOK

            (Newtonian) Quantum Gravity seems to be both important and necessary in the description of Life. Namely, the lest sophisticated living organisms between viruses (which do not live) and bacteria, the Rickettsia, are in the 10¹⁰ dalton range. And 1 dalton is 1.67*10^-24 g; only in units more natural for biochemists. See [1], and uncountable biological textbooks.

            Now surely Quantum Gravity must show serious deviation from both Classical Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics around the line

              M³R ~ h²/G ~ 10^-47 g³cm                                                                                (1)

For proteins ρ ~ 1 g/cm³, so we get the critical data about

              M ~ 10^-14 g and R ~ 2*10^-5 cm = 200 mµ                                                       (2)

And that is the scale of the most primitive living organisms. Is it a mere coincidence?

            And even if it is: We do not have fully elaborated physical theory yet in this range. So, for any case: we cannot describe Life without a complete Newtonian Quantum Gravity.

            Another point is Free Will. Free Will is a very difficult philosophical problem; sometimes it is told that Luther's fatal heresy was triggered by his being an Augustine monk, and St. Augustine was preferring predestination. In order to avoid fruitless philosophising, let us turn the problem into Buridan's Donkey.

            Buridan's Donkey is the subject/object (as you like) of a Gedankenexperiment. Does it have Free Will? No, because it does not have Immortal Soul. Good; then deposit on its both sides some hay, of equal quantity and quality, at equal distances. What would happen? Buridan's original derivation was that without Free Will the donkey would starve into death, because the external attractions are equal. If the donkey goes to eat, it must have selected one haystack against the other; and if all external circumstances are equal, the selection, or Choice, demonstrates the existence of Free Will. You may tell that Choice can happen "simply" via Stochastic/Random processes; this is true but the result of a stochastic process cannot be distinguished from Free Will. Stochastic Choice is simply the Free Will of an utter madman.

            Now consider the SET (Serial Endosymbiosis Theory) of the evolution of eukaryotes, suggested by Sagan & Margulis ([15], [16], [17]). (The authors are really a single person using two names.) The idea is that the new features of eukaryotes with respect to prokaryotes did not simply evolve; many organelles originally had been independent prokaryotes, but then the host gorged them. SET is practically proven for the latter steps, so we know that mitochondria had been purple bacteria (or close kin) and chloroplasts blue-green algae; and the host is guessed to have been a thermophile, acid-tolerant Gram-positive Archaea, as e.g. today's Thermoplasma acidophilum. However Margulis reconstructed an even older symbiosis event as well, and that is still a matter of argumentation. Maybe the event happened so far in the past that the traces are almost completely obliterated; although, following postumus ms's of Kirby, Margulis & al. believe they see something in calonymphs. See e.g. [18].

            The original idea is that today each cell having a nucleus has also many organelles, including microtubules. If these all were results of a series of endogenous development, one would expect nucleated cells without some of them; and they are absent. (SET for mitochondria & chloroplasts is proven because there are nucleated cells without chloroplasts or mitochondria.) Now, Margulis' Step 1 led to nucleus, centriole and kinetosomes in a development after a single symbiosis event of a Gram-positive passive "amoeboid" "host" (really a large prokaryote), and several Spirochaeta-like Gram-negative active "guests". The host may have moved slowly with pseudopods, but it surely could not swim. On the other hand, the guests were active swimmers, as today's Spirochetae. Undulipodia (cilias & flagellas) of the eukaryotes are then simply the original individual Gram-negative swimmers. However sometimes after the symbiosis a nucleus has been formed, putting all DNA into a compartment, and then the original genetic material of the swimmers is hard to find (except, maybe, in calonymphae?). But the nucleated cell needs mitosis, so kinetosomes & centrioles. Now, they contain microtubules; and maybe they or their precursors came also with the Gram-negative swimmers.

            Now, do Spirochaetae contain microtubules/tubulin, or not? Margulis & coauthors were originally rather positive; see e.g. [19]. However 7 years later, in [20], they are more negative. They tell that no microtubule in sensu strictu was seen in bacteria; but generally tubules and tubulin-like proteins have been found. Anyway, Ref. [18] calls swimmer Hollandina simply "cytoplasmic tubule-maker", and Ref. [21] states that protein FtsZ is the "bacterial ancestor" of tubulin. If this is so, then an ancient, more Hollandina-like Spirochaeta swimmer indeed could carry the precursor of tubulin & microtubulus into the host.

            And now let us look at the reconstructed Step 1 of SET. Assume a gradient of a desired food in the water. By simple chemotrophism both active swimmers and passive pre-hosts can follow the gradient, and at the end can feed. However the problem of Buridan's Donkey appears with two-peaked distributions. Maybe lots of pre-hosts starved in such, not too frequent, situations.

            Active swimmers may have had even more problems. A spirochete is almost a flagellum; it swims with its own undulation. There is no need of Choices after the first stroke. but the first one can go into a variety of directions, equally preferable. So without spirochetic Free Will we are back at the problem of Buridan's Donkey, for any would-be swimmer.

            Now, let us take into account that the host and spirochete obey Quantisation as well. Thinking in Quantum Mechanics nothing is clarified. If they have Y's, they are superpositions. With two stacks of nice sugars or amino acids, the host's Y is a 1/2-1/2 superposition of Going Right and Going Left; so No Motion at All. And the spirochete still cannot make its Choice for the first stroke.

            OK, but there is no living organism with M³R<h²/G. So superpositions break down; but when & how? We will see later, the more Macro will sooner. Anyways, a spirochete could have Free Will even 2 Gy ago, because it was above the border, already Macro. The Gram-positive passive pre-host was even more Macro, but I would be very much surprised if its substantial parts could have any Y; certainly it was rather incoherent.

            And now remember the Penrose-Hameroff model of neural processes. Coherent quantum states are formed in microtubules, and then the superposition breaks down [8], [9]. (FtsZ occurs also in Archaebacteria [22], so tubulin may have evolved in the host as well. But why for? It was not too active.)

            Now, clearly, I am a physicist, and I would be overconfident were I to try to decide an argumentation of so outstanding biologists as Margulis & Cavalier-Smith, even if I lead an evolutionary Subcommittee in Hungary. For a physicist, and for Newtonian Quantum Gravity Eukarya can be a quite independent third domain of Life as emphasized by Woese [23], or may evolved directly from Archaea, developing all basic eukaryotic features prior to acquiring mitochondria as Cavalier-Smith believes (see e.g. [24] whence you can trace back earlier trees), or may have arisen from an Archaea-Eubacteria symbiosis of Margulis, or even from a triple symbiosis of Hatman & Fedorov [25]. The last explanation is the most versatile, but, of course, it is the most contrary also to Occam's Razor. I would still like to tell the story according to the SET of Margulis, and will mention in the next paragraph, why; but the physical problem is independent of the biological context.

            Biologist tell that Eukarya have lots of bacterial (here, in Woeseian language: not Archaeal) traits. Some of them may have come with the ancestor of mitochondria (note that ancestors of chloroplasts probably never entered the ancestors of Animals, Fungi and many Protozoa), but if there are primarily amitochondriate eukaryotes, then their bacterial traits do need explanation. True, the primary amitochondriate nature of all candidates is challenged [26], but not yet disproven. As far as I understand, in each candidate group some genes were found which may be mitochondrial, or at least related to mitochondrial ones. Then the negative argumentation goes as: the group had had originally mitochondria, for long enough time that the respective genes have gone to the nucleus, and only then they lost the mitochondria. (This construction of consecutio temporum seems nice to me; my first language does not have this grammatical tool.) However if there was a symbiosis before the acquisition of mitochondria, who knows what eubacterial genes can come from that.

            Really, everybody seems to agree that Parabasalia and Diplomonadida together oppose all other Eukaryas on the cladistic trees. By other words the very first forking amongst Eukarya was to the (hypothetical) common ancestor of Parabasalia & Diplomonadida (no name; trees vary in the Archezoa part) on one hand versus the common ancestor of anything else, from Oxymonadida to us on the other. So indeed, Parabasalia might have preserved old features lost on the other half of the tree.

            Now, Margulis & Dolan indeed claim that they observed in that group traces of the very first symbiosis, and that these traces are the existence of karyomastigont described first by Janicki in 1915, and the interesting reproduction of some parabasalids.

            I would like to tell the story in inverse order. How do we know that the symbiotic origin of plants is true? Well, chloroplasts reproduce themselves quasi independently of the nucleus; they have their own DNA (bacterially organised). De novo chloroplasts never occur, as it can be verified by simple experiment (keep a green plant for long enough in darkness).

            What about the mitochondria? That symbiosis is older. And indeed, mitochondria do have their independent DNA, but some genes already have been transferred to the nucleus. So mitochondrial reproduction is under very strong nuclear control, but the nucleus cannot produce mitochondria de novo.

            Now take any symbiosis even older. You expect that even more part of the genetic information has been transferred into the nucleus; in extreme situations all the DNA gone there. Still, a small amount (operative or not) may have remained in some eukaryotes in the parts which are the descendants of the eubacterial ancestor.

            Extreme SET "predicts" that the first eubacterial symbiont was a spirochete (in wide sense), whose descendant is the undulipodium. Then one may expect from SET that the undulipodium has some autonomy, at least in some "archaic" taxa (or that it had in the past; but then how to detect it now?). And then the following claims existed:

            In 1989 Hall, Luck & Ramanis claimed that they found c-kDNA in Chlamydomonas [27]. Indeed, they identified some twenty genes linked together, important in swimming; and they reported the respective DNA to be located outside the nucleus near the bases of the undulipodia. But it seems that in 1995 they changed the second part of the claim telling that the genes are near the centriole-kinetosomes but still inside the membrane.

            1n 1997 Margulis & Dolan claimed to have seen c-kDNA in Calonympha grassii [28]. C. grassii is one-celled but with a multitude of nuclei and undulipodia. Indeed, undulipodia are arranged in fours, sometimes attached to a nucleus (karyomastigont), sometimes not (akaryomastigont). They treated the calonymph with a paint making DNA fluorescent and then they saw bigger spots thought to be the nuclei and smaller ones, sometimes in clusters of four. If this report is confirmed, then there is still DNA in the organizing centers of Calonympha's undulipodia; interestingly enough it seems that the finding was not yet confirmed at the Henneguy-Lenhossék conference in next June [29]. (Also now it seems that maybe the DNA is extranuclear, but surprisingly in pockets of the Golgi reticulum [30].)

            However, in some unicellar entities "kinetosome reproduction is partially independent of nuclear control" [29].

            At the reproduction of Parabasalids not only the (nuclear) chromosomes are halved and carried to the poles but also the mastigont [18], [31].

            Now, these claims are at least consistent with a picture where cilias/flagellae are the inheritors of the "bodies" of originally independent swimmers, while the nucleus was created in the interaction of host Archaea and guest swimmers and mitosis had to be developed for guaranteeing the proportional transmission of genes of different origin in proliferation. Indeed, separation of halves of the mastigont too in mitosis, and semi-independent doubling of kinetosomes together with the chromosomes remind me to the semi-independent handling of mitochondria in Neozoa, and the many (and, by any probability, indeterminate) number of nucleusless akaryomastigonts (so, practically, undulipodia in fours) to the mitochondria & chloroplasts of higher organisms

            So, Extreme SET is consistent with known facts: si non e vero, e ben trovato.

            Now comes the Quantum Physical aspect. As I told, I formulate it in Extreme SET. Both the thermophile archaean host, and the eubacterial guests were above the boundary of the validity of Quantum Mechanics M³R~h²/G (surely the host was the biggest of them), so none of them might have had a Ψ. However any of them may have had a coherent central part with a Ψ; or may have not. But we saw that Choice (Free Will) might come from Newtonian Quantum Gravity, but surely not from pure Macroscopy. Also, Penrose & Hameroff believe that "thinking" (be it Quantum Computation, Choice, Stochastics or anything) is based on the development of "large" coherent quantum states and then a breakdown of Superposition. Let us try to formulate one simple situation with a simple Choice, far in the past.

            There is a prokaryote in the fluid (dirty water). It feels some gradient of a chemical signal of food. Can it go to engulf it?

            It depends. Big, shapeless thermophile Archaeas can, slowly, move e.g. with pseudopods. Namely, to follow a gradient is not a Choice but simply a chemotropism. (Remember Buridan; his donkey does not need Free Will with a single haystack). Of course, with two clusters of food and the Archaea just between there is no gradient, no chemotropism can operate, so without an operative Ψ (see next paragraph) the Archaea cannot feed; but this situation is rare, so maybe there was no need forcing Evolution to develop an organ of Choice.

            However a spirochete would starve to death without Choice. Imagine a gradient and a spirochete. Spirochetes swim via undulating motion, as undulipodia do. The simplest model is a sinusoid spring. If you make it start to swim, the further phases do not need Choices. Length, elastic coefficients &c. determine the swim, only motive energy is needed. But what about the first stroke?

            The interesting fact is that the first stroke might have any direction. For simplicity's sake you might think that Gravity singles out the horizontal plane (but in water the spirochete is rather weightless) and in that plane the main axis of the spirochete singles a line; but even in this case the first stroke might be to the left or to the right. They are equally probable; even a coin would be good to Choose, but there are no coins.

            Imagine first a compact center of Choice somewhere in the spirochete. This cannot be a centriole or a kinetosome, because spirochetes do not have microtubules; but for first guess they might be precursors of them. And indeed, Hollandina is "cytoplasmic tubule-maker". So maybe simple tubules are much inferior for Choice than full-developed Microtubules, but better than nothing, and a spirochete can live with that.

            But, unfortunately, no go. First, the Penrose-Hameroff mechanism does not work. OK, maybe microtubules are optimal for the Penrose-Hameroff mechanism, the interior being screened against external disturbances and so. But even a single Microtubule is not enough!

            Take a microtubule of the canonical 24 mµ diameter and ten times this for length. (As far as I know in centrioles/kinetosomes the length is even smaller.) Then, assuming even that the interior of the cylinder is not completely empty, the estimated mass is

              (10π/4)*(24 mµ)³*(1 g/cm³) = 1.09*10^-16 g                                                                (3)

On the other hand, for the Micro/Macro borderline we get

              M₀^10/3(3*cm³/4π*g)^1/3 = h²/G                                                                          (4)

where M₀ is the mass at the boundary, so

              M₀ ~ 7.7*10^-15 g                                                                                                        (5)

Here "~" instead of "=" shows the incompleteness of NQG. Anyways, we would need cca. 70 such microtubules to reach the boundary.

            Now, take one, or a few, ideal microtubules and imagine that coherent Quantum State (i.e. a Ψ) can develop there (since they are ideal). It is as good for the spirochete to start with a left stroke than with a right one, so if the mysterious organising center (a proto-kinetosome?) works using Quantisation, a superposed state will develop (50 % left + 50 % right). And this superposed state remains forever in Quantum Mechanics. In Quantum Gravity it breaks down after some time; although the complete NQG formalism is not yet ready, from elementary laws we know that above breakdown mass

              t_br/t₀ ~ (M₀/M)⁵                                                                                                                     (6)

where M₀ is the mass at the boundary, for organic matter cca. 10¹⁰ dalton, and t₀ is the breakup time of superpositions extrapolated to the boundary. This latter is really hard to estimate at the present state of art, but it seems to be cca. 1000 s, take or leave one or two orders of magnitude [32]. So with a proto-kinetosome of a single microtubule a single decision would take 10¹² s, or 30,000 years. With FtsZ instead of tubulin the situation seems even worse.

            So we are confronted with the problem, how spirochetes can start to swim. Their total mass/size is above the boundary, thus it is not against fundamental laws for them Choosing; but we do not yet know how they do it. Surely they utilize substantial parts of them, instead of the (in them) non-existent kinetosomes which should be composed of tubulin instead of its existing precursor, FtsZ. But anyways, they can swim, and can Choose to start to swim. (As also flagellated predator Daptobacter can [33]: and it is only 2*10¹⁰ dalton, roughly an order of magnitude above the Micro/Macro border with a flagellum-coordinating system (unknown so far) hardly greater than the absolute minimum for superposition breakdowns.)

            OK, we shall know it sooner or later. We do know that the eukaryote kinetosome consists of 9 triplets in cylindrical pattern, so 27 microtubules. While this seems to be still short of the boundary by some factor 3 in mass, it is better to take this shortcoming as that of the incomplete theory, and to tell that theory & observation together give a 10⁹-10¹⁰ dalton lower limit for Choice.

            So then: in 2 Gy ago there were big amoeboid Gram-positive almost passive would-be hosts and active swimming proto-Hollandinas. We (I mean us and Calonymphas together and everything between us) are descendants & inheritors of both. Both were Macroscopic (there are no living organisms below the boundary, at least not at present), and the Penrose-Hameroff mechanism (coherent quantum states are formed and then superpositions break down, [8], [9]) is to have been improbable in both; but something must have been worked (with bad efficiency?) in the proto-Hollandina, while we cannot argue for any substitute in the big, passive, Gram-positive one.

            Then the big one started to engulf the swimmers/the swimmers started to accompany to the host. This did not improve the mechanism of Choosing; but for a start even proto-Hollandinas helped the host. In the consortium stage, therefore, we cannot expect kinetosomes. Maybe in the chimera stage.

            Maybe microtubule precursors were carried into the host by the free swimmers. One average microtubule is still too light; a coherent structure of several dozen reaches the border between Microscopy/Macroscopy. Then came mild digestion and rearrangement, and after some substantial time, when first good microtubules appeared in the developing proto-eukaryote consortium, then kinetosomes, centrioles and the karyomastigont, repetitions of buildups of superpositions in substantial volumes, and subsequent breakdowns of superpositions when the subvolume reached 10^-14 cm³ started to happen. The proto-eukaryote's Free Will (far and much more sophisticated descendent of that of the swimmer) appeared first time, and the proto-eukaryote touched its proto-forehead with a pseudopod, thinking, as a proto-Cartesius: Look! Cogito, ergo sum.

            If you are interested, you can read an extended abstract of mine, clicking here, for a symposium, held on May 27, 2005 in Budapest: Consciousness and Its Evolution.

            So Consciousness (or Mind?) is a Newtonian Quantum Gravity product. Very probably no par excellence Relativistic Quantum Gravity effects take place there (in spite of the fuzzy common opinion); the proper scale of RQG is 10^-33 cm and 10^-44 s, and there is nothing in Life on such scales.

            As you see, I reached Present. So I stop at least for a while.

 

REFERENCES

 [1]       B. Lukács: B. Lukács: Triality in the Depth of Physics? On the Fundamental Unification. in Proc. 6th Symp. on Matter Evolution, eds. B. Lukács & al., KFKI-1995-21, p. 6. Also on Internet: http://www.rmki.kfki.hu/~lukacs/3DEPTH.htm

 [2]       I. Asimov: Foundation. Doubleday, Garden City, 1951

 [3]       F. Károlyházy, A. Frenkel & B. Lukács: On the Possibility of Observing the Eventual Breakdown of the Superposition Principle. In: Physics as Natural Philosophy, eds. A. Shimony & H. Feshbach, MIT Press, Cambridge Mass. 1982, p. 204

 [4]       F. Károlyházy, A. Frenkel & B. Lukács: On the Possible Role of Gravity in the Reduction of the Wave Function. In: Quantum Concepts in Space and Time, eds. R. Penrose & C. J. Isham, Clarendon Press, 1986, p. 109

 [5] Ágnes Holba & B. Lukács: Is the Anomalous Brownian Motion Seen in Emulsions? Acta Phys. Hung. 70, 121 (1991)

 [6] L. Diósi & B. Lukács: On the Minimum Uncertainty of Space-Time Geodesics. Phys. Lett. A142, 331 (1989)

 [7]       A. Einstein: Über die von der molekularkinetischen Theorie der Wärme geforderte Bewegung von in ruhenden Flüssigkeiten suspendierten Teilchen. Annln. Phys. 17, 549 (1905)

 [8]       R. Penrose: Shadows of the Mind. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1994

 [9]       S. R. Hameroff & R. Penrose: Conscious Events As Orchestrated Spacetime Selections. J. Consci. Studies 3, 36 (1996)

[10]      L. Diósi: Models for Universal Reduction of Macroscopic Quantum Fluctuations. Phys. Rev. A40, 1165 (1989)

[11]      L. Diósi & B. Lukács: Károlyházy's Quantum Space-Time Generates Neutron Star Density in Vacuum. Nuovo Cim. 108B, 1419 (1993)

[12]      L. Diósi & B. Lukács: Calculations of X-Ray Signals from Károlyházy's Hazy Space-Time. Phys. Lett. A181, 366 (1993)

[13]      M. Tegmark: The Importance of Quantum Decoherence in Brain Processes. Phys. Rev. E61, 4194 (2000)

[14]      S. Hagan, S. R. Hameroff & J. A. Tuszynski: Quantum Computation in Brain Microtubules: Decoherence and Biological Feasibility. Phys. Rev. 65E, 61901 (2002)

[15]      Lynn Sagan: On the Origin of Mitosing Cells. J. Theor. Biol. 14, 225 (1967)

[16]      Lynn Margulis: Origins of Eukaryotic Cells. Yale University Press, New Haven, 1975

[17]      Lynn Margulis: Symbiosis in Cell Evolution. Freeman, New York, 1983

[18]      Lynn Margulis, M. F. Dolan & R. Guerrero: The Chimeric Eukaryote: Origin of the Nucleus from the Karyomastigont in Amitochondriate Protists. PNAS 97, 6954 (2000)

[19]      D. Bermudes, S. P. Fracek, R. A. Laursen, L. Margulis, R. Obar & G. Tzertzinis: Tubulinlike Protein from Spirochaeta bajacaliforniensis. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 503, 515 (1987)

[20]      D. Bermudes, G. Hinkle & Lynn Margulis: Do Prokaryotes Contain Microtubules? Microbiol. Revs. 58, 387 (1994)

[21]      Fusinita van den Ent, Linda Amos & J. Löve: Bacterial Ancestry of Actin and Tubulin. Corr. Opinions in Microbiol. 4, 634 (2001)

[22]      ***: Letters from Readers. The Sciences, 37/4, 46 (1997)  [the Cavalier-Smith vs. Margulis & Dolan argumentation]

[23]      C. Woese: The Universal Ancestor. PNAS 95, 6854 (1998)

[24]      T. Cavalier-Smith: A Revised Six-Kingdom System of Life. Biol. Rev. 73, 203 (1998)

[25]      H. Hartman & A. Fedorov: The Origin of the Eokaryotic Cell: A Genomic Investigation. PNAS 99, 1420 (2002)

[26]      P. J. Keeling: A Kingdom's Progress: Archezoa and the Origin of Eukaryotes. BioEssays 20, 87 (1998)

[27]      J. L. Hall, Zenta Ramanis & D. J. L. Luck: Basal Body/Centriolar DNA: Molecular Genetic Studies in Chlamydomonas. Cell 59, 121 (1989)

[28]      Lynn Margulis & M. F. Dolan: Swimming Against the Current. The Sciences 37/1, 20 (1997)

[29]      M. J. Chapman: One Hundred Years of Centrioles: the Henneguy-Lenhossek Theory, Meeting Report. Internatl. Microbiol. 1, 233 (1998)

[30]      M. F. Dolan: DNA Fluorescent Stain Accumulates in the Golgi But Not in the Kinetosomes of Amitochondriate Protists. Internatl. Microbiol. 3, 45 (2000)

[31]      M. F. Dolan, Hannah Melnitsky, Lynn Margulis & Robin Kolnicki: Motility Protein and the Origin of the Nucleus. The Anatomicl. Rec. 268, 290 (2002)

[32]      Ágnes Holba & B. Lukács: Is the Spurious Scattering a Quantum Gravity Phenomenon?. in Stochastic Evolution of Quantum States in Open Systems and in Measurement Problems, eds. L. Diósi & B. Lukács. World Scientific, Singapore, 1994, p. 69

[33]     R. Guerrero, C. Pedrós-Alió, Isabel Esteve, J. Mas, D. Chase & Lynn Margulis: Predatory Prokaryotes: Predation and Primary Consumption Evolved in Bacteria. PNAS 83, 2138 (1986)