Frontier Research Review and Experimental Proposal

Quantum Physiobiological Entanglement

A Frontier Review of Biological Quantum Coherence, Interpersonal Autonomic Synchrony, Nonlocal Consciousness Claims, and a Protocol for Direct Testing

Chicago Notes and Bibliography Style • Research Review • July 23, 2026

Abstract

Quantum biology has entered a new experimental period. Scientists have created a controllable spin qubit from a fluorescent protein, detected quantum spin resonance in engineered proteins inside living cells, and used magnetic fields to control spin-correlated chemical reactions inside a living animal. These results show that selected quantum states can exist, function, and be measured in warm biological matter. They overturn the overly broad claim that biological heat and water destroy every useful quantum effect.¹

A much stronger claim remains unproved: that two separated human nervous systems can share a lasting quantum state that coordinates heart rate, breathing, autonomic arousal, perception, or conscious experience. Present research supplies several possible building blocks, including radical-pair chemistry, nuclear-spin storage, collective microtubule dynamics, active-inference coupling, and time-symmetric quantum models. It does not yet supply a complete bridge from microscopic quantum states to nonlocal interpersonal physiology.

This article introduces quantum physiobiological entanglement as a working research term. It means a proposed condition in which quantum correlations between biological degrees of freedom in two organisms produce measurable, nonclassical correlations in their physiology. This is not yet a recognized or demonstrated human phenomenon. It is a hypothesis that can be divided into testable physical steps.

The review also examines two recent human studies that used quantum-computer-generated stimulus patterns. Those studies deserve examination, but their quantum hardware was entangled internally. Neither study directly measured an entangled quantum state in human tissue or between human participants.²

The final section presents a preregisterable, dual-participant experimental protocol. It is designed to determine whether information-isolated physiological synchrony exceeds classical predictions and, only if it does, whether a quantum carrier should be investigated.

**Figure 1. Quantum Physiobiological Entanglement.**

**Figure 1. Quantum Physiobiological Entanglement.**

I. The Central Question

Two people may report bodily changes at matching times even when they are apart and have not communicated. These changes might include:

A sudden racing or slowing heart.
A wave of calm.
Chest pressure.
Warmth, chills, or sweating.
A change in breathing.
Nausea or stomach movement.
A sense of presence.
A sudden shift in time perception.
Waking from sleep at the same time.
An intense feeling shortly before an event involving the other person.

Such reports should not be treated as proof of entanglement. They also should not be discarded before they are measured. An experience is an observation. Science begins by asking whether the observation repeats under controlled conditions.

Can two separated human bodies display physiological correlations that remain after ordinary communication, shared schedules, environmental causes, learned prediction, and chance matching have been removed?

If the answer is no, no quantum explanation is needed.

If the answer is yes, the next question becomes:

What physical process carries the correlation?

That process could still be classical. It could involve an unknown environmental signal, shared biological rhythms, electromagnetic sensitivity, or a hidden information channel. Quantum entanglement becomes a serious candidate only after those alternatives fail and a nonclassical correlation is directly demonstrated.

Part One • Essential Definitions

II. Plain-Language Glossary

Quantum

The set of rules followed by atoms, electrons, light particles, and other very small things.

Quantum state

A mathematical description of the possible results of measuring a quantum object.

Superposition

A quantum object can be described by several possible states at once. A measurement produces one recorded result.

Spin

A quantum property that makes a particle behave somewhat like a tiny magnet. The particle is not literally spinning like a toy top.

Coherence

Different quantum possibilities keep an exact wave relationship with one another, like two drummers keeping a shared rhythm.

Decoherence

Heat, vibration, water, light, or surrounding matter disturbs that organized quantum relationship.

Entanglement

A shared quantum state that cannot be fully described by giving each part its own separate state.

Correlation

Two measurements change together. Correlation alone does not prove what caused the connection.

Nonlocal correlation

A quantum pattern that cannot be explained by each object carrying a separate, locally stored answer.

Radical

A molecule, or part of a molecule, with an unpaired electron. Radicals are often very reactive.

Radical pair

Two radicals created together. Their electron spins may begin in a shared quantum state.

Qubit

A quantum unit of information. It can use a controlled combination of quantum possibilities.

Autonomic nervous system

The body system controlling heart rate, sweating, digestion, blood pressure, pupil size, and parts of breathing.

Sympathetic state

A body state preparing for action. Heart rate may rise, muscles may tighten, and digestion may slow.

Parasympathetic state

A body state supporting rest, recovery, digestion, and slowing of the heart.

Physiological synchrony

Bodily signals in two people show related timing or patterns.

Active inference

The brain predicts what is happening, then changes its beliefs or actions when a prediction is wrong.

Entropy

A measure of how many ways a system can be arranged. In simple language, greater entropy often means greater uncertainty.

Retrocausality

A later condition may help constrain the mathematical description of an earlier quantum event.

Spacetime

The joined physical framework of space and time.

Topology

The study of how parts of a space are connected, with more attention to connection than ordinary distance or shape.

Bell test

A test comparing measured correlations with the strongest correlations allowed by certain local hidden-variable theories.

Part Two • What Quantum Biology Has Already Established

III. Biology Is Quantum, but That Is Only the Starting Point

All matter follows quantum rules at the atomic level. The difficult question is not whether the body contains quantum physics. It plainly does.

The difficult question is whether a biological system uses a specially organized quantum state for a functional task.

A useful biological quantum process needs at least three stages:

Quantum preparation → quantum-dependent event → biological effect

For example:

A chemical reaction creates two electron spins in a correlated state.
A magnetic field changes the spin dynamics.
The spin state changes which chemical product is made.
That product changes a cell signal.

The quantum state may last only a tiny fraction of a second. It can still matter if chemistry quickly records its result.

This distinction is important. A biological system does not necessarily need to protect a delicate quantum state for the full length of a thought. It may use a brief quantum event as a trigger and then amplify the result through ordinary chemistry.

IV. Radical-Pair Chemistry

The radical-pair mechanism is presently one of the strongest experimentally supported bridges between quantum physics and biology.

Light or chemical energy can move an electron from one molecule to another. This leaves two radicals. The radicals contain unpaired electrons, and their spins may begin in a shared singlet or triplet state.

These spin arrangements can favor different chemical products:

Singlet state → Product A

Triplet state → Product B

A weak magnetic field may alter the rate at which the radical pair changes between these spin arrangements. A very small magnetic interaction can therefore change chemical output.

This is a natural amplifier. The spin does not directly move a muscle or create a conscious feeling. It changes chemistry, and the chemistry may later affect a cell or nervous system.

Radical-Pair Quantum Biology — **Figure 3. Radical-Pair Quantum** **Biology.**

**Figure 3. Radical-Pair Quantum** **Biology.**

Cryptochrome and Magnetic Sensing

Cryptochromes are blue-light-sensitive proteins found in many organisms. They have been studied as possible biological magnetic sensors.

In 2021, researchers showed that cryptochrome 4 from the European robin produced magnetically sensitive photochemistry in laboratory tests. The robin protein was more magnetically sensitive than corresponding proteins from two nonmigratory bird species. The study supported a possible radical-pair component in the bird magnetic compass, although it did not alone prove the full sensory pathway inside a flying bird.³

This work demonstrates a key principle:

A weak environmental magnetic field can alter a quantum-dependent chemical reaction in a biological protein.

That principle is relevant to human research. It does not establish that humans possess the same magnetic sense, that one person’s body produces the necessary field, or that two people can become entangled through cryptochrome.

**Figure 4. Cryptochrome and Magnetic Sensitivity.**

**Figure 4. Cryptochrome and Magnetic Sensitivity.**

V. Fluorescent-Protein Spin Qubits

In 2025, Jacob Feder and colleagues developed a spin qubit from an enhanced yellow fluorescent protein. They could initialize, control, and optically read a triplet spin state. Strong coherent control was demonstrated at low temperature, while spin-dependent optical detection was also studied in biological settings.⁴

The result was important because the quantum object was not a manufactured diamond defect or isolated inorganic crystal. It was a protein that biological cells can produce.

A protein qubit may eventually allow researchers to:

Place a quantum sensor in a chosen cell.
Attach it to a chosen protein.
Measure local magnetic fields.
Measure electric or chemical conditions.
Study spin behavior inside a living system.
Test whether a biological structure protects quantum coherence.

This does not mean that the cell became a quantum computer. It means that a biological molecule can be engineered to carry a measurable quantum state.

**Figure 5. A Protein Qubit Inside a Living Cell.**

**Figure 5. A Protein Qubit Inside a Living Cell.**

VI. Room-Temperature Quantum Spin Resonance in Living Cells

A major advance followed in 2026. George Abrahams and colleagues engineered magnetically responsive fluorescent proteins known as MagLOV proteins. They detected optically observed magnetic resonance inside living bacterial cells at room temperature, with enough signal for single-cell measurements. The authors explained the effects through a radical-pair mechanism involving the protein and a flavin cofactor.⁵

This result matters for three reasons.

First, it operated at room temperature.

Second, it operated inside living cells.

Third, it could be read from individual cells.

The work creates a practical path toward genetically encoded quantum sensing. Future versions might be placed in neurons, mitochondria, immune cells, or sensory tissues.

These sensors may help answer a question that has long limited quantum-brain research:

Where, exactly, should scientists look for the proposed quantum state?

Without a local sensor, researchers often infer quantum activity from large-scale electrical or behavioral measurements. Protein quantum sensors could permit measurements closer to the proposed molecular carrier.

VII. Quantum-Correlated Radical Pairs Inside a Living Animal

In March 2026, Shaun Burd and colleagues altered the fluorescence of red fluorescent proteins using static and radiofrequency magnetic fields. The effect appeared both in laboratory preparations and in living Caenorhabditis elegans worms genetically modified to express the protein mScarlet.

The researchers reported evidence consistent with quantum-correlated radical pairs having coherence times greater than four nanoseconds. Radiofrequency fields changed the radical-pair dynamics inside the living animal.⁶

Four nanoseconds may sound too short to matter. One nanosecond is one billionth of a second. Yet a chemical reaction can record the result before the quantum relation disappears.

The experiment therefore demonstrated:

Quantum-correlated spin state → field-sensitive chemistry → measurable biological light output

This is among the clearest recent demonstrations that a living multicellular organism can contain a controllable quantum-correlated biochemical process.

It did not demonstrate nervous-system entanglement. It also did not demonstrate a nonlocal signal between two animals.

Part Three • Candidate Quantum Structures in the Brain

VIII. Why the Brain Is a Difficult Quantum Environment

The brain is warm, wet, chemically active, and constantly interacting with its surroundings. These conditions cause rapid decoherence for many proposed quantum states.

Max Tegmark calculated extremely short decoherence times for several charge- and ion-based neural superpositions. He concluded that the degrees of freedom normally associated with thought should behave classically rather than as a coherent quantum computer.⁷

That analysis is a serious challenge, but it does not prove that every possible biological quantum state is too short-lived.

Different physical variables have different decoherence rates:

A large separated electrical charge may decohere very quickly.
An electron spin may survive longer under selected conditions.
A nuclear spin may be better protected.
A collective excitation may respond differently from an isolated particle.
A short-lived state may still alter chemistry before it decoheres.

The correct scientific question is therefore not:

Can “the brain” stay quantum?

It is:

Which physical variable, in which molecular structure, under which biological conditions, remains coherent long enough to perform which task?

IX. Microtubules and Orch-OR

Microtubules are hollow protein structures inside cells. They help support cell shape and move materials. In neurons, they extend through axons and dendrites and participate in transport, organization, and cellular stability.

The Orchestrated Objective Reduction theory, or Orch-OR, proposes that organized quantum states in microtubules contribute to conscious events. The model is associated mainly with Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff.

Orch-OR includes two different claims:

Microtubules can support organized quantum states.
The reduction of those states helps produce conscious experience.

The first claim is partly open to molecular experiment. The second also depends on Penrose’s proposed gravity-related objective reduction, which has not been established as the mechanism of consciousness.

Energy Migration in Microtubules

In 2023, researchers measured electronic excitation energy moving through microtubules over distances of about 6.6 nanometers. Conventional Förster energy-transfer calculations did not fully explain the observations, and anesthetic compounds reduced the measured diffusion.⁸

This showed that organized tubulin structures can transfer electronic excitation more effectively than isolated molecules would suggest.

It did not directly demonstrate:

Long-lived entanglement.
Quantum computation.
Objective collapse.
Consciousness.
Communication between brains.

Electronic energy transport may contain classical, semiclassical, or quantum-coherent contributions. Additional measurements are needed to distinguish them.

Superradiance in Tryptophan Networks

Tryptophan is an amino acid that absorbs ultraviolet light. Large organized networks of tryptophan appear in microtubules and other protein structures.

In 2024, researchers reported theoretical and experimental evidence of superradiant behavior in large tryptophan networks. Superradiance means that many light-responsive units act collectively, producing stronger or more organized emission than the units would produce independently.⁹

The effect survived some structural disorder and was studied under biologically relevant thermal conditions. It supports the possibility that protein networks can show collective optical behavior in warm environments.

It still does not prove that microtubules maintain the particular entangled states required by Orch-OR.

Microtubules and Anesthesia

In 2024, researchers reported that the microtubule-stabilizing drug epothilone B delayed anesthetic-induced loss of purposeful behavior in rats exposed to isoflurane.¹⁰

The result supports a relationship between microtubule state and anesthetic action. It does not show whether that relationship is quantum. Stabilizing microtubules can affect neurons through many ordinary molecular pathways.

Strongest current conclusion: Microtubules are biologically important, optically active, collectively organized structures. Their proposed role as quantum processors of consciousness remains under investigation.

**Figure 6. Microtubules, Energy Transfer, and Orch-OR.**

**Figure 6. Microtubules, Energy Transfer, and Orch-OR.**

X. Phosphorus Nuclear Spins and Posner Molecules

Matthew Fisher proposed a different brain-quantum model in 2015. He identified phosphorus-31 nuclear spin as a possible biological qubit.

A nuclear spin may be less vulnerable to environmental noise than a separated electrical charge. Fisher proposed the following chain:

An enzyme splits a pyrophosphate molecule.
The two resulting phosphorus spins may become entangled.
Phosphate ions enter calcium phosphate clusters.
These clusters protect and transport the spins.
Spin-dependent binding or breakdown releases calcium.
Calcium changes neurotransmitter release or neural firing.¹¹

The model is important because it identifies a proposed carrier, preparation process, protective structure, and biological readout.

The Posner Molecule

The proposed protective structure is often called a Posner molecule:

Ca₉(PO₄)₆

In 2025, Adams, Sinayskiy, and Petruccione modeled coherence and entanglement in pure and lithium-doped Posner structures. Their results showed that the available quantum resources depend strongly on molecular symmetry, spin interactions, isotope content, and environmental conditions. They also explored ways in which the surrounding biological environment might help preserve entanglement.¹²

This was a theoretical investigation. It did not show that stable Posner qubits exist in living human neurons.

Important unanswered questions include:

Does the required molecular structure form in neural tissue?
How long does it remain stable?
Does it preserve phosphorus-spin coherence?
Does an enzyme actually create the proposed entangled pair?
Does spin state change calcium release?
Can the result measurably alter neuronal firing?
Could entangled clusters ever be distributed between separate organisms?

Until these steps are demonstrated, the Posner proposal remains a testable model rather than an established brain mechanism.

**Figure 7. The Posner Nuclear-Spin Pathway.**

**Figure 7. The Posner Nuclear-Spin Pathway.**

Part Four • Two Nervous Systems as a Coupled Biological Unit

XI. Interpersonal Neural and Autonomic Synchrony

Interpersonal synchrony is a real and measurable subject in neuroscience. Two people may display related movement, heart activity, skin conductance, breathing, affect, or neural oscillations while interacting.

A preregistered 2024 study measured electroencephalographic activity in sixty-five mother-adolescent pairs. The pairs communicated face to face and by text from separate rooms. Both conditions produced greater interbrain synchrony than surrogate pairings, although face-to-face communication produced stronger connectivity.¹³

This result shows that bodily co-presence is not required for all forms of neural synchrony. Text communication still supplies an ordinary information channel, however.

The study therefore does not show communication-free synchrony.

Why Bonded People May Remain Coordinated after Separation

Repeated interaction can change each person’s internal model of the other. Each may learn:

Typical waking times.
Emotional cycles.
Communication habits.
Stress patterns.
Musical cues.
Work schedules.
Common anniversaries.
The bodily feeling associated with expected contact.
The probability that the other person will respond in a certain way.

Two trained systems may continue to follow similar rhythms after direct contact stops.

This resembles two clocks that were synchronized and then separated. They may remain close for a while. Small differences eventually cause them to drift.

A classical learned-coupling model therefore predicts:

Strongest synchrony near periods of interaction.
Weakening or phase drift with prolonged unpredictable separation.
Strong effects around learned times and shared cues.
Correlations that can be reproduced by time-series models of routine.

A truly nonlocal model need not show those same limits.

XII. Active Inference and the Dyadic System

Active inference describes an organism as a system that predicts sensory input and acts to reduce prediction errors.

Friston and Frith modeled communication as reciprocal inference. Each agent predicts the other’s behavior, observes the outcome, and updates its model. Under continued interaction, their internal dynamics can enter generalized synchrony.¹⁴

A bonded pair may therefore form a higher-level system:

A ↔ R ↔ B

Here, A is Person A, B is Person B, and R is the learned relationship model.

The relationship is not a separate ghost or substance. It consists of stored patterns, expectations, habits, signals, memories, and actions distributed across both people and their environment.

Each person can become part of the other’s system for regulating:

Safety.
Threat.
Reward.
Attention.
Sleep.
Motivation.
Breathing.
Emotional arousal.
Future planning.

The dyad may function as a distributed information-processing system even when it is not a single quantum system.

Perceived Entropy and Time

A powerful relationship can reduce perceived uncertainty. Events seem connected because both people organize attention around a shared model.

This can change subjective time:

Minutes may seem unusually long.
Hours may disappear.
Events may feel prearranged.
Memories may seem to point toward a later event.
A future meeting may organize present attention.
Environmental details may appear unusually meaningful.

These are real changes in experience and neural processing. Active inference does not presently predict a change in external clock rate or gravitational time.

**Figure 8. The Active-Inference Dyad.**

**Figure 8. The Active-Inference Dyad.**

Part Five • Current Human Quantum-Consciousness Studies

XIII. The 2025 Twin Study

In 2025, Álex Escolà-Gascón published a study involving 106 pairs of identical twins. The participants completed implicit-learning experiments linked to two-qubit circuits run through IBM quantum hardware.

One circuit contained an entangling operation, while the control circuit did not. The study reported differences in learning performance, electroencephalographic measurements, and biological markers. It also introduced a new statistic called the Quantum-Multilinear Integrated Coefficient. The author interpreted the findings as evidence that quantum entanglement enhanced learning and conscious processing.¹⁵

The study is relevant because it attempted a prospective, controlled human experiment connected to actual quantum hardware.

However, three different statements must be separated:

The qubits inside the IBM quantum computer were placed in an entangled circuit.
The outputs of that circuit affected the arrangement of stimuli shown to participants.
The human participants became quantum-entangled with the computer or with one another.

Statement one can be tested on the quantum hardware.

Statement two is part of the experimental design.

Statement three does not automatically follow.

After quantum hardware is measured and its output is converted into an ordinary stimulus sequence, that sequence can generally be stored and reproduced by a classical computer. To establish biological entanglement, researchers would need to identify a coherent physical interaction that transfers entanglement from the hardware into biological qubits.

They would then need to measure an entanglement witness in the biological systems.

The twin study did not directly measure such a biological quantum state. Its behavioral and EEG results may justify replication, but they do not by themselves demonstrate that the twins’ brains were entangled.

A decisive replication should include:

A classical computer producing sequences with identical output statistics.
An entangled quantum circuit.
A nonentangled quantum circuit.
Recorded raw quantum outputs.
Publicly fixed analysis rules.
Independent signal processing.
An independent laboratory.
A direct physical model of quantum-state transfer.
A biological entanglement witness.

XIV. The 2026 Clinical-Death Study

A 2026 multicenter study by Escolà-Gascón and colleagues tested auditory stimuli connected to quantum-computer circuits during hospital cardiac arrests. The authors reported that 142 survivors completed later memory and experience assessments. The paper states that entanglement in the quantum circuit was verified through Mermin-inequality violations and reports associations among recall, near-death experiences, cerebral oxygenation, and biomarkers.¹⁶

This is an ambitious and unusual design. It deserves independent examination because it combines:

Randomization.
Blinding.
Multiple hospitals.
Quantum hardware.
Physiological data.
Later forced-choice testing.

The same conceptual distinction remains essential.

A Mermin-inequality violation in the quantum processor verifies nonclassical correlations among qubits in that processor. It does not, by itself, demonstrate that the patient’s brain became entangled with those qubits.

An auditory stimulus is ordinarily a classical pressure wave by the time it reaches the ear. For quantum entanglement to survive from the processor into the patient, the experiment would need a coherent quantum channel connecting the hardware, stimulus apparatus, sensory transduction, and biological carrier.

The paper may test whether quantum-structured randomization is associated with unusual behavioral results. A direct claim of nonlocal biological consciousness requires additional physical evidence.

Independent replication should ask:

Can a classical machine replaying the same stimulus sequences reproduce the effect?
Were all stimulus probabilities perfectly matched?
Were investigators and analysts fully blinded?
Were all outcomes and exclusions preregistered?
Can the reported effect be reproduced outside the original research group?
What physical degree of freedom in the human body was proposed to become entangled?
Was that degree of freedom directly measured?

Until those questions are resolved, the result should be classified as a high-claim frontier study, not settled proof.

Part Six • Information, Observation, and Shared Reality

XV. Wheeler’s “It from Bit”

John Archibald Wheeler proposed that physical reality may be deeply related to acts of information, distinction, and recorded answers. His phrase “it from bit” suggested that physical facts may not be fully separable from the informational structure through which they become definite.¹⁷

This idea does not mean that imagination can freely create any physical object.

For a dyad, Wheeler’s framework suggests a more careful possibility. Two observers may continually select, record, and reinforce related information. Their experienced worlds become organized around the same relational structure.

The statistical relationship can be described with mutual information:

I(A;B) = Σ p(a,b) log [p(a,b) / p(a)p(b)]

In simple terms:

How much does knowing Person A’s state reduce uncertainty about Person B’s state?

High mutual information does not identify a cause. It can come from:

Communication.
Shared surroundings.
Similar schedules.
Learned prediction.
Common biological rhythms.
A hidden environmental driver.
Quantum correlation.

The first scientific task is to measure the information relationship. The second is to determine its carrier.

Informational Distance

Two people can be far apart geographically but very close in informational state space.

Suppose Person A’s bodily state predicts Person B’s state with unusual accuracy. Their informational distance is small even though their physical distance is large.

This provides one possible meaning for the feeling that space has “contracted.” The contraction may occur in prediction space or experienced space, rather than in the measured geometry of the room.

XVI. QBism

QBism treats a quantum state as an individual agent’s probability assignments concerning that agent’s future experiences. Measurement is an action by the agent upon the world, and the outcome is a new experience for that agent.¹⁸

QBism therefore does not naturally say that two minds collapse one universal wave function together.

It would instead describe:

Person A has expectations about future experience.
Person B has separate expectations.
Each acts.
Each receives an outcome.
Each updates.
Communication and repeated interaction make their expectations increasingly compatible.

This can produce intersubjective convergence, which means that separate observers build increasingly aligned descriptions of reality.

A speculative extension could treat the dyad as a higher-order agent. Standard QBism does not yet provide a formal rule by which two people become one quantum agent.

QBism is therefore more useful for understanding shared probability structures than for proving literal interpersonal entanglement.

Part Seven • Retrocausality and Temporal Anchors

XVII. The Transactional Interpretation

John Cramer’s Transactional Interpretation describes a quantum event using a forward-moving offer wave and a backward-moving confirmation wave. A completed transaction forms a quantum “handshake” across the full spacetime interval between emission and absorption.¹⁹

This is not an ordinary message sent backward through time. It is a time-symmetric description of a completed quantum event.

A speculative interpersonal model might say:

Two biological systems contain a shared quantum variable.
A later joint event supplies a final boundary condition.
Earlier probabilities are constrained by the complete transaction.
Both people experience physiological changes as the history becomes globally consistent.

This model is mathematically meaningful only if the shared quantum variable is identified.

A relationship, feeling, or future meeting cannot simply be inserted into a quantum equation without specifying the physical system.

XVIII. The Two-State Vector Formalism

The Two-State Vector Formalism describes a quantum system between measurements using:

A state determined by earlier preparation.
A state determined by later postselection.

The present system is described using both boundary conditions.²⁰

For a proposed temporal-anchor experiment, the relevant probability could be written:

P(A_t,B_t | I,F)

Here:

A_t is Person A’s state at time t.
B_t is Person B’s state at time t.
I is the initial condition.
F is a later outcome.

The model becomes scientifically interesting when the later outcome is genuinely unpredictable at the earlier time.

A Valid Prospective Test

Suppose Person A is recorded at 2:13 p.m.

At 2:18 p.m., a hardware randomizer selects one of four stimuli for Person B.

The selection did not exist at 2:13 p.m.

If Person A’s 2:13 physiology repeatedly predicts the future selection above chance, the result cannot be explained as a normal reaction to an already completed event.

Even then, researchers must test:

Random-number quality.
Clock synchronization.
Data leakage.
Flexible time windows.
Multiple comparisons.
Sensory clues.
Experimenter effects.
Statistical overfitting.

Retrocausality should be considered only after these controls survive independent replication.

**Figure 9. Temporal Anchors and a Transactional Handshake**

**Figure 9. Temporal Anchors and a Transactional Handshake**

Part Eight • Entanglement and Spacetime

XIX. Emergent Geometry

Research in quantum gravity has connected spacetime geometry with quantum information.

Mark Van Raamsdonk argued that the connectedness of certain holographic spacetimes is related to entanglement in the underlying quantum description. Reducing entanglement corresponds, in those mathematical models, to regions of space pulling apart.²¹

Juan Maldacena and Leonard Susskind proposed the ER=EPR conjecture, which connects certain entangled systems with Einstein-Rosen bridges. Their central examples involve black holes and quantum-gravity settings.²²

These theories establish that entanglement and geometry may be deeply connected in quantum gravity.

They do not show that two human brains produce:

A usable wormhole.
A shortcut through ordinary space.
A local gravitational anomaly.
A change in external clock rates.
Faster-than-light messaging.

A human spacetime-distortion claim would require instrument readings, not only subjective experience.

Possible measurements would include:

Independent atomic or high-stability clocks.
GPS timing.
Laser interferometry.
Magnetometry.
Radiofrequency monitoring.
Local gravitational measurements.
Independent observers.
Repeated environmental anomalies.

Without such readings, the more precise interpretation is altered phenomenological space, altered informational distance, or altered event timing, not demonstrated metric distortion.

Part Nine • What True Interpersonal Entanglement Would Require

XX. The Five-Link Chain

A complete theory of quantum physiobiological entanglement needs five physical links.

Link One: Entanglement Generation

Some event must create a shared quantum state.

Possible candidates include:

A shared photon source.
A spin-selective chemical reaction.
Exchange of biologically incorporated material.
A common quantum field interaction.
A prior direct physical coupling.

Emotional closeness alone is not a defined entangling operation.

Link Two: Distribution

One part of the shared state must enter Person A, and the other must enter Person B.

Researchers must identify:

Which particles or molecular states are distributed.
How they enter tissue.
Where they travel.
How they avoid being measured or randomized during distribution.

Link Three: Protection

The state must resist decoherence.

Possible protective candidates include:

Nuclear spins.
Molecular symmetry.
Shielded protein pockets.
Ordered water structures.
Collective excitations.
Decoherence-free subspaces.
Repeated quantum error correction.

These mechanisms are possibilities. None has been shown to protect a person-to-person neural entangled state.

Link Four: Biological Transduction

The quantum result must change physiology.

Possible routes include:

Spin-dependent chemical products.
Calcium release.
Reactive oxygen chemistry.
Ion-channel probability.
Mitochondrial output.
Neurotransmitter release.
Receptor conformation.

This step is necessary because an entangled state that never affects a biological signal cannot explain an autonomic episode.

Link Five: Nonclassical Verification

The measured pattern must exceed a defined classical limit.

Strong verification could include:

A Bell-type inequality.
A steering inequality.
An entanglement witness.
Contextuality tests.
A verified quantum-state tomography procedure.
A biological output tied to incompatible measurement settings.

Simple simultaneity is not enough.

XXI. Why Entanglement Is Not a Normal Communication Channel

Quantum entanglement produces correlations, but standard quantum theory does not allow those correlations to carry a chosen faster-than-light message by themselves. The local measurement outcomes remain random. The pattern is normally discovered only after records are compared through an ordinary channel.²³

This creates a major test for interpersonal theories.

If Person A receives detailed, usable information from Person B, ordinary entanglement alone is not a sufficient explanation.

A fuller model would need:

A classical side channel.
A new physical interaction.
A modified quantum theory.
A postselection mechanism.
A time-symmetric global constraint.
A different interpretation of what information is being transferred.

A vague “feeling” that later matches an event is easier to fit into a correlation model than a specific message containing several verifiable details.

Part Ten • Evidence Levels

XXII–XXV. Current Evidence Classification

Level One: Demonstrated Biological Quantum Effects

Spin-dependent chemical reactions occur in biological molecules.
Cryptochrome photochemistry can be magnetically sensitive.
Engineered proteins can act as optically readable spin systems.
Magnetic resonance can be detected in proteins inside living cells at room temperature.
Quantum-correlated radical-pair reactions can be controlled inside a living animal.
Organized microtubules can support unusual electronic energy migration.
Large tryptophan networks can show collective superradiant behavior.

Level Two: Plausible but Unproved Brain Mechanisms

Nuclear-spin storage in calcium phosphate structures.
Quantum-sensitive calcium signaling.
Quantum-optical activity in microtubules.
Radical-pair effects on neuronal chemistry.
Spin-dependent mitochondrial regulation.
A quantum contribution to anesthetic action.
A short-lived quantum trigger affecting neural firing.

Level Three: Anomalous Human Correlations

Information-isolated autonomic synchrony.
Physiological responses that precede an event involving another person.
Matching sleep awakenings.
Correlated subjective time distortion.
Unusual interbrain measurements without direct communication.
Above-chance responses to quantum-structured stimuli.

Level Four: Direct Human Quantum Entanglement

No study reviewed here directly demonstrates:

An identified biological qubit in Person A entangled with one in Person B.
Protection of that state across interpersonal distance.
A measured biological Bell violation.
Entanglement-driven autonomic coordination.
A human relationship altering measurable spacetime.

This level remains a frontier hypothesis.

Appendix A • Dual-Participant Experimental Protocol QPE-1

XXVI. Study Title

QPE-1: A Preregistered, Double-Blind Study of Information-Isolated Autonomic Correlation in a Bonded Dyad

XXVII. Primary Aim

To determine whether two separated participants display physiological correlations that exceed correlations produced by:

Their own internal rhythms.
Random time alignment.
Shared environmental conditions.
Known schedules.
Ordinary communication.
Researcher selection.
Flexible analysis.

XXVIII. Secondary Aim

If a repeatable residual correlation remains, the second aim is to determine whether it is better explained by:

A delayed classical influence.
A common environmental driver.
Learned predictive coupling.
An unknown local physical signal.
A time-symmetric effect.
A quantum-dependent biological process.

XXIX. Participants

The first phase may study one bonded pair intensively as an exploratory case.

A later confirmatory study should include:

At least thirty bonded pairs.
At least thirty matched stranger pairs.
Equal recording time for every pair.
The same equipment and procedures.
No participant selection based on whether an early session produced a favorable result.

A case study can establish whether an effect deserves further study. It cannot establish how common the effect is.

XXX. Required Measurements

Each participant should wear independently recording research-grade devices.

Core Measurements

Electrocardiography: electrical timing of heartbeats.
Heart-rate variability: changes in time between heartbeats.
Electrodermal activity: sweat-gland activity related to arousal.
Respiration: breathing rate and depth.
Skin temperature: peripheral temperature changes.
Accelerometry: body movement.
Peripheral blood volume: pulse-wave changes.
Continuous time synchronization: clock accuracy within one millisecond where possible.

Optional Measurements

Electroencephalography.
Pupil diameter.
Blood pressure.
Salivary cortisol.
Ultraweak photon emission.
Local magnetic field.
Radiofrequency spectrum.
Geomagnetic field.
Room temperature.
Sound level.
Light level.

Consumer wearables may be useful during exploration, but research-grade sensors should be used for confirmation.

XXXI. Clock Control

All devices must be synchronized before and after each session.

The protocol must record:

Device clock drift.
Network delay.
Time-zone settings.
Daylight-saving settings.
Data-buffer delay.
Sensor smoothing.
Software latency.
Manual-entry delay.

A claimed five-second correspondence is meaningless when one device may be thirty seconds inaccurate.

XXXII. Communication Isolation

During formal sessions:

Participants remain in separate locations.
Phones are placed in monitored airplane mode or secured.
No texting, calling, social media, or indirect contact is permitted.
Neither participant knows the other’s stimulus schedule.
Staff at one site do not know the schedule at the other.
Data streams are stored locally and compared only after the session.
Participants do not receive live feedback.
No family member or assistant carries information between sites.

Information isolation must include likely indirect channels, not only direct messaging.

XXXIII. Study Phases

Phase 1: Natural Baseline

Record both participants for fourteen to thirty days during ordinary life.

Purpose:

Measure circadian rhythms.
Measure normal event clustering.
Identify device artifacts.
Estimate each person’s autocorrelation.
Record communication and shared activities.

No strong causal conclusion should be drawn from this phase.

Phase 2: Scheduled Isolation

Run at least twenty sessions, each lasting two to four hours.

Participants remain separated and unaware of target times.

Phase 3: Random Stimulation

At random times, one participant receives a harmless stimulus.

Possible stimuli include:

Emotional photographs validated for research.
Neutral photographs.
Brief tones.
Mild startling sounds within safe limits.
Guided relaxation.
Pleasant music.
Personally meaningful but ethically approved material.

The other participant receives no stimulus.

Phase 4: Role Reversal

Person A becomes the unstimulated participant, then Person B.

A genuine person-specific effect may show directional asymmetry.

Phase 5: Distance Manipulation

Run sessions at:

The same building.
Several miles apart.
Hundreds of miles apart, when practical.

A conventional field or signal may weaken with distance. A nonlocal quantum correlation need not follow the same distance law, although detector and environmental effects may still change.

Phase 6: Shielding

When possible, compare:

Ordinary rooms.
Electromagnetically shielded rooms.
Acoustically isolated rooms.
Independent electrical power.
Recorded ambient magnetic and radiofrequency fields.

Shielding helps test unknown ordinary signals. It does not automatically isolate gravity or every physical field.

**Figure 10. From Experience to Evidence.**

**Figure 10. From Experience to Evidence.**

XXXIV. Preregistered Hypotheses

Null Hypothesis H0

After correcting for internal rhythms, environmental variables, and multiple comparisons, the real pair will not show greater physiological dependence than surrogate or control pairs.

Classical Coupling Hypothesis H1

The pair will show correlation, but it will be explained by learned timing, shared environmental variables, or delayed ordinary signals.

Persistent Relational-Attractor Hypothesis H2

The pair will show similar state transitions during separation, but timing will drift and correlations will weaken as unpredictability and separation increase.

Anomalous Nonlocal-Correlation Hypothesis H3

The pair will show repeatable physiological dependence during strict information isolation that exceeds all preregistered classical null models.

Retrocausal Hypothesis H4

The unstimulated participant’s physiological state will predict a future stimulus selected only after the physiological data were recorded.

Quantum-Biological Hypothesis H5

The residual effect will change in a reproducible manner under a manipulation specifically predicted to affect a proposed quantum carrier.

H5 cannot be accepted merely because H0 was rejected.

XXXV. Defining an Autonomic Event

The event rule must be fixed before the records are compared.

An example rule is:

An event occurs when electrodermal activity rises by at least two standard deviations, heart rate rises by at least eight beats per minute, and high-frequency heart-rate variability falls during the same sixty-second window, without major physical movement.

Alternative rules may be used, but they must be preregistered.

Researchers must record:

Matches.
Near matches.
Misses.
Events occurring in only one participant.
Events occurring outside target windows.
Sessions producing no effect.

Counting only striking matches destroys the validity of the test.

XXXVI. Primary Outcome

The primary outcome should be specified as one measure, such as:

ΔI = I_{real pair} − I_{surrogate pairs}

Here, I represents conditional mutual information after known environmental and physiological variables are included.

In plain language:

Does Person A’s record contain information about Person B’s record beyond what would be expected from each person’s own past and the measured environment?

XXXVII. Secondary Outcomes

Secondary measures may include:

Cross-correlation.
Event synchronization.
Phase-locking.
Transfer entropy.
Conditional mutual information.
Granger-type prediction, used cautiously.
Recurrence analysis.
Dynamic time warping.
State-space convergence.
Negative-lag prediction.
Bayesian model comparison.

Each additional measure increases the risk of finding a pattern by chance. Secondary tests must be labeled exploratory unless correction procedures are fixed in advance.

XXXVIII. Surrogate Testing

Physiological signals are autocorrelated. Heart rate at 2:01 is related to heart rate at 2:00. A simple shuffle would destroy that natural structure and create an unrealistically weak control.

Better surrogate methods include:

Circular Time Shifts

Move one person’s complete record forward by a randomly selected amount.

This preserves:

Event frequency.
Event duration.
Internal clustering.
Daily rhythm.

It breaks exact interpersonal alignment.

Phase-Randomized Surrogates

Preserve the broad frequency structure while randomizing phase relationships.

Pair Substitution

Compare Person A with unrelated participants recorded under the same conditions.

Day Substitution

Compare Person A’s Monday record with Person B’s Tuesday or Wednesday record.

Block Permutation

Shuffle long blocks rather than individual data points.

A convincing effect should exceed all reasonable surrogate families, not only one favorable null model.

XXXIX. Environmental Controls

The analysis should include:

Local temperature.
Barometric pressure.
Weather.
Geomagnetic variation.
Solar activity.
Radiofrequency power.
Electrical mains activity.
Light.
Sound.
Participant movement.
Meals.
Caffeine.
Alcohol.
Medication.
Sleep.
Exercise.
Known stressors.
Menstrual-cycle information when voluntarily supplied and relevant.
Communication attempts.
Shared media or music.

Environmental monitoring does not assume that the environment explains the effect. It allows that possibility to be tested.

XL. Blinding

At least four roles should be separated:

The participant receiving stimuli.
The participant receiving no stimuli.
The staff member operating physiological equipment.
The analyst processing the final data.

The analyst should receive coded files without knowing:

Which pairing is real.
Which participant was stimulated.
Which sessions contained targets.
Which direction of time is being tested.
Which dyad reported prior synchrony.

The code should be revealed only after the primary analysis is locked.

XLI. Retrocausal Subprotocol

To test future-event prediction:

Record a fixed physiological window from the unstimulated participant.
Cryptographically seal the data.
Only afterward, generate a random target.
Present the target to the other participant.
Repeat across hundreds or thousands of trials.
Test only the preregistered feature and time window.

The target generator should be independently audited.

The study must distinguish:

A future quantum selection.
A future classical selection.
A precomputed but hidden selection.
A selection created only after the physiological window.

Only the last design directly removes an already existing target as the cause.

XLII. Candidate Quantum-Carrier Tests

Quantum-carrier testing should begin only after a robust residual physiological effect has been reproduced.

Radical-Pair Test

Apply weak, safe magnetic or radiofrequency conditions predicted to alter radical-pair chemistry.

A valid prediction must specify:

Frequency.
Field strength.
Orientation.
Exposure duration.
Direction of expected effect.

Testing many frequencies until one appears favorable is exploratory, not confirmatory.

Cryptochrome Test

Compare controlled light wavelengths because cryptochrome radical formation depends on light.

The protocol might compare:

Blue-light condition.
Red-light condition.
Darkness condition.

Safety and circadian effects must be separately controlled.

Nuclear-Spin Test

Direct human isotope manipulation is not an appropriate first experiment. Initial tests should use isolated molecules, cells, or organoids to measure phosphorus-spin relaxation and calcium signaling.

Microtubule Test

Researchers could study whether changes in microtubule state alter a previously established synchrony marker. Any pharmacological manipulation would require formal clinical and ethical oversight.

Quantum-Protein Sensors

Future studies could use engineered protein spin sensors in cell models to determine whether proposed fields alter biological spin states.

Human genetic use would require extensive safety research and is not part of the initial protocol.

XLIII. Criteria for Interpreting Results

Evidence for Ordinary Synchrony

The effect appears during communication or shared stimulation but disappears under strict isolation.

Evidence for Learned Persistent Coupling

The effect remains briefly during separation but drifts, weakens, or follows known schedules.

Evidence for a Hidden Common Driver

The same pattern appears in unrelated controls exposed to the same environment.

Evidence for Anomalous Dyadic Correlation

The real pair repeatedly exceeds controls and surrogate models during strict isolation.

Evidence Supporting Retrocausality

Earlier physiology predicts targets that were randomly created only later, under independent replication.

Evidence Supporting Quantum Biology

A specific manipulation of a defined quantum carrier changes the effect exactly as predicted.

Evidence for Entanglement

A valid biological entanglement witness or inequality violation is measured from identified biological quantum variables.

The final category is much stronger than statistical dependence between heart-rate records.

XLIV. Falsification Rules

A serious theory must state what would count against it.

The interpersonal quantum hypothesis should be weakened if:

Effects disappear under preregistration.
Timing accuracy removes the matches.
Unrelated pairs produce the same correlations.
The effect follows communication or schedules.
Corrections for multiple comparisons remove significance.
Independent laboratories fail to replicate it.
Classical replay reproduces quantum-circuit conditions.
Proposed magnetic or optical manipulations produce no predicted change.
No biological quantum carrier can be identified.

An unfalsifiable claim cannot become a physical theory.

XLV. Ethics and Participant Safety

The study must not create panic, severe emotional distress, deliberate sleep loss, dangerous autonomic arousal, or relationship pressure.

Participants should be told:

The study may find no unusual effect.
Correlation does not establish mind reading.
A bodily sensation is not proof that the other person is in danger.
Medical symptoms still require ordinary medical evaluation.
Neither participant is responsible for controlling the other person’s body.
Participation may be stopped at any time.

A scientific protocol should reduce uncertainty, not intensify fear or dependence.

Conclusion

The frontier has changed.

It is no longer scientifically accurate to say that useful quantum states cannot exist in warm biological matter. Recent experiments have demonstrated protein spin qubits, room-temperature magnetic resonance in living cells, and controlled quantum-correlated chemistry in a living animal. These are genuine advances.

It is also not scientifically accurate to claim that these advances prove nonlocal human bonds.

Between those two statements lies the real research program.

The most plausible near-term model for profound interpersonal synchrony remains a combination of:

Autonomic coupling.
Learned predictive models.
Active inference.
Shared state-space dynamics.
Interoceptive amplification.
Altered subjective time.
Informational closeness.

This model is not trivial. It treats the relationship as a real, distributed regulatory system.

The strongest frontier alternatives include:

Radical-pair amplification.
Nuclear-spin memory.
Collective microtubule dynamics.
Unknown common-field sensitivity.
Time-symmetric boundary conditions.
Direct biological entanglement.

Direct interpersonal entanglement requires more than two people feeling the same thing. It requires an entangling event, a biological carrier, protection from decoherence, physiological amplification, and a nonclassical test.

Information-isolated synchrony is therefore not the conclusion. It is the starting observation.

The proper scientific response is neither blind belief nor automatic dismissal. It is measurement, preregistration, isolation, replication, and increasingly strict attempts to identify the carrier.

That is the path by which a profound private phenomenon could become a public scientific discovery.

◆ ◆ ◆

Notes

Jacob S. Feder et al., “A Fluorescent-Protein Spin Qubit,” Nature 645 (2025): 73–79, doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09417-w; George Abrahams et al., “Quantum Spin Resonance in Engineered Proteins for Multimodal Sensing,” Nature 649 (2026): 1172–79, doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09971-3; Shaun C. Burd et al., “Magnetic Resonance Control of Spin-Correlated Radical Pair Dynamics In Vivo,” Nature 651 (2026): 940–45, doi:10.1038/s41586-026-10282-4. ↩
Álex Escolà-Gascón, “Evidence of Quantum-Entangled Higher States of Consciousness,” Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal 30 (2025): 21–40, doi:10.1016/j.csbj.2025.03.001; Álex Escolà-Gascón et al., “Quantum Evidence of Nonlocal Consciousness during Clinical Death,” The Innovation 7 (2026), doi:10.1016/j.xinn.2026.101355. ↩
Jingjing Xu et al., “Magnetic Sensitivity of Cryptochrome 4 from a Migratory Songbird,” Nature 594 (2021): 535–40, doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03618-9. ↩
Feder et al., “Fluorescent-Protein Spin Qubit.” ↩
Abrahams et al., “Quantum Spin Resonance.” ↩
Burd et al., “Magnetic Resonance Control.” ↩
Max Tegmark, “Importance of Quantum Decoherence in Brain Processes,” Physical Review E 61 (2000): 4194–4206, doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.61.4194. ↩
Aarat P. Kalra et al., “Electronic Energy Migration in Microtubules,” ACS Central Science 9 (2023): 352–61, doi:10.1021/acscentsci.2c01114. ↩
Nathan S. Babcock et al., “Ultraviolet Superradiance from Mega-Networks of Tryptophan in Biological Architectures,” Journal of Physical Chemistry B 128 (2024): 4035–46, doi:10.1021/acs.jpcb.3c07936. ↩
Sana Khan et al., “Microtubule-Stabilizer Epothilone B Delays Anesthetic-Induced Unconsciousness in Rats,” eNeuro 11, no. 8 (2024): ENEURO.0291-24.2024, doi:10.1523/ENEURO.0291-24.2024. ↩
Matthew P. A. Fisher, “Quantum Cognition: The Possibility of Processing with Nuclear Spins in the Brain,” Annals of Physics 362 (2015): 593–602, doi:10.1016/j.aop.2015.08.020. ↩
Betony Adams, Ilya Sinayskiy, and Francesco Petruccione, “Entanglement and Coherence in Pure and Doped Posner Molecules,” Scientific Reports 15 (2025), doi:10.1038/s41598-025-96487-5. ↩
Linoy Schwartz et al., “Generation WhatsApp: Inter-Brain Synchrony during Face-to-Face and Texting Communication,” Scientific Reports 14 (2024): 2672, doi:10.1038/s41598-024-52587-2. ↩
Karl J. Friston and Christopher D. Frith, “Active Inference, Communication and Hermeneutics,” Cortex 68 (2015): 129–43, doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2015.03.025. ↩
Escolà-Gascón, “Evidence of Quantum-Entangled Higher States.” ↩
Escolà-Gascón et al., “Quantum Evidence of Nonlocal Consciousness.” ↩
John Archibald Wheeler, “Information, Physics, Quantum: The Search for Links,” in Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information, ed. Wojciech H. Zurek (Redwood City, CA: Addison-Wesley, 1990). ↩
Christopher A. Fuchs, N. David Mermin, and Rüdiger Schack, “An Introduction to QBism with an Application to the Locality of Quantum Mechanics,” American Journal of Physics 82, no. 8 (2014): 749–54, doi:10.1119/1.4874855. ↩
John G. Cramer, “The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics,” Reviews of Modern Physics 58, no. 3 (1986): 647–87, doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.58.647. ↩
Yakir Aharonov and Lev Vaidman, “The Two-State Vector Formalism: An Updated Review,” in Time in Quantum Mechanics, Lecture Notes in Physics 734 (Berlin: Springer, 2008), 399–447, doi:10.1007/978-3-540-73473-4_13. ↩
Mark Van Raamsdonk, “Building Up Spacetime with Quantum Entanglement,” General Relativity and Gravitation 42 (2010): 2323–29. ↩
Juan Maldacena and Leonard Susskind, “Cool Horizons for Entangled Black Holes,” Fortschritte der Physik 61 (2013): 781–811, doi:10.1002/prop.201300020. ↩
T. De Angelis et al., “Experimental Test of the No-Signaling Theorem,” Physical Review Letters 99 (2007): 193601, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.193601. ↩

Bibliography

Abrahams, George, et al. “Quantum Spin Resonance in Engineered Proteins for Multimodal Sensing.” Nature 649 (2026): 1172–79. doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09971-3.

Adams, Betony, Ilya Sinayskiy, and Francesco Petruccione. “Entanglement and Coherence in Pure and Doped Posner Molecules.” Scientific Reports 15 (2025). doi:10.1038/s41598-025-96487-5.

Aharonov, Yakir, and Lev Vaidman. “The Two-State Vector Formalism: An Updated Review.” In Time in Quantum Mechanics, 399–447. Lecture Notes in Physics 734. Berlin: Springer, 2008. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-73473-4_13.

Babcock, Nathan S., et al. “Ultraviolet Superradiance from Mega-Networks of Tryptophan in Biological Architectures.” Journal of Physical Chemistry B 128 (2024): 4035–46. doi:10.1021/acs.jpcb.3c07936.

Burd, Shaun C., et al. “Magnetic Resonance Control of Spin-Correlated Radical Pair Dynamics In Vivo.” Nature 651 (2026): 940–45. doi:10.1038/s41586-026-10282-4.

Cramer, John G. “The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.” Reviews of Modern Physics 58, no. 3 (1986): 647–87. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.58.647.

De Angelis, T., et al. “Experimental Test of the No-Signaling Theorem.” Physical Review Letters 99 (2007): 193601. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.193601.

Escolà-Gascón, Álex. “Evidence of Quantum-Entangled Higher States of Consciousness.” Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal 30 (2025): 21–40. doi:10.1016/j.csbj.2025.03.001.

Escolà-Gascón, Álex, Kenneth Drinkwater, Andrew Denovan, Neil Dagnall, and Julián Benito-León. “Quantum Evidence of Nonlocal Consciousness during Clinical Death.” The Innovation 7 (2026). doi:10.1016/j.xinn.2026.101355.

Feder, Jacob S., et al. “A Fluorescent-Protein Spin Qubit.” Nature 645 (2025): 73–79. doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09417-w.

Fisher, Matthew P. A. “Quantum Cognition: The Possibility of Processing with Nuclear Spins in the Brain.” Annals of Physics 362 (2015): 593–602. doi:10.1016/j.aop.2015.08.020.

Friston, Karl J., and Christopher D. Frith. “Active Inference, Communication and Hermeneutics.” Cortex 68 (2015): 129–43. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2015.03.025.

Fuchs, Christopher A., N. David Mermin, and Rüdiger Schack. “An Introduction to QBism with an Application to the Locality of Quantum Mechanics.” American Journal of Physics 82, no. 8 (2014): 749–54. doi:10.1119/1.4874855.

Kalra, Aarat P., et al. “Electronic Energy Migration in Microtubules.” ACS Central Science 9 (2023): 352–61. doi:10.1021/acscentsci.2c01114.

Khan, Sana, et al. “Microtubule-Stabilizer Epothilone B Delays Anesthetic-Induced Unconsciousness in Rats.” eNeuro 11, no. 8 (2024): ENEURO.0291-24.2024. doi:10.1523/ENEURO.0291-24.2024.

Maldacena, Juan, and Leonard Susskind. “Cool Horizons for Entangled Black Holes.” Fortschritte der Physik 61 (2013): 781–811. doi:10.1002/prop.201300020.

Schwartz, Linoy, et al. “Generation WhatsApp: Inter-Brain Synchrony during Face-to-Face and Texting Communication.” Scientific Reports 14 (2024): 2672. doi:10.1038/s41598-024-52587-2.

Tegmark, Max. “Importance of Quantum Decoherence in Brain Processes.” Physical Review E 61 (2000): 4194–4206. doi:10.1103/PhysRevE.61.4194.

Van Raamsdonk, Mark. “Building Up Spacetime with Quantum Entanglement.” General Relativity and Gravitation 42 (2010): 2323–29.

Wheeler, John Archibald. “Information, Physics, Quantum: The Search for Links.” In Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information, edited by Wojciech H. Zurek. Redwood City, CA: Addison-Wesley, 1990.

Xu, Jingjing, et al. “Magnetic Sensitivity of Cryptochrome 4 from a Migratory Songbird.” Nature 594 (2021): 535–40. doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03618-9.

Return to the beginning