Entanglement-Enabled Information Processing Implies Human Consciousness Mechanism

Creation of Entangled Proton Qubits

Consistent with evolutionary design the replicase introduces complementary G-C and A-T pairs into metastable keto-amino states [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 35, 36]. Quantum informational content within duplex DNA is a consequence of metastable, hydrogen bonded amino (─NH2) protons encountering quantum uncertainty limits Δx Δpx ≥ ħ/2 [1, 2, 16, 17, 18, 19, 32, 33]. This introduces a probability of direct quantum mechanical proton – proton interaction, yielding EPR-arrangements keto-amino ― (entanglement) → enol−imine (Figures 1-4), observed as G-C → G´-C´, G-C → *G-*C and A-T → *A-*T. (Bold italics ― G´-C´, *G-*C, *A-*T ― denote necessity of Hilbert space to describe dynamics of embedded entangled proton qubit- pairs; (Figures 1-4) Reduced energy product enol and imine protons occupying heteroduplex heterozygote sites — G´-C´, *G-*C, *A-*T — contain EPR-generated, entangled proton qubits, shared between two different indistinguishable sets of electron lone-pairs belonging to decoherence-free subspaces of enol oxygen and imine nitrogen on opposite genome strands (Figures 1-4) [10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 24, 25, 34, 35, 36, 37]. These EPR-generated proton “qubit- pairs” participate in entangled, two-state quantum oscillations, │+> ⇄ │–>, at ~ 4×1013 s−1 (~ 4800 m s−1) between near symmetric energy wells in decoherence- free subspaces ― for years to decades ― until measured, δt << 10−13 s, in a major (~ 22 Å) or minor (~ 12 Å)

genome groove [38] by evolutionarily selected Grover’s [20] quantum readers [17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 25].

Click to enlarge

Figure 2: Symmetric (a) and asymmetric (b) channels for EPR-generated proton exchange ─ electron arrangement at a G-C site. a) Symmetric channel for proton exchange tunneling electron rearrangement, yielding two enol-imine hydrogen bonds between complementary G-C. Here an energetic guanine amino proton initiates the reaction. (b) The asymmetric exchange tunneling channel, yielding the G-C “hybrid state” containing one enol-imine and one keto-amino hydrogen bond. An energetic cytosine amino proton initiates reaction in this channel. An annulus of reaction is identified by arrows within each G-C reactant duplex. Electron lone-pairs are represented by double dots, :. Subscript notation for *G0200, etc. is given in Figure 3 legend.

Before proton decoherence, τD < 10‒13 s, proton – processor entanglement states implement quantum information processing, Δt´ ≤ 10−14 s, including (i) transcription, (ii) translation, (iii) selection of accessible amino acids for peptide bond formation, (iv) initiation of genome growth and (v) random genetic drift [1, 2, 5, 16, 19, 31, 36]. This specifies peptide bond formation — ~ 8 to 16 KJ/mole from proton decoherence — and the final, decohered molecular clock state, which is an observable time-dependent substitution, ts — G′2 0 2 → T, G′0 0 2 → C, *G0 2 00 → A & *C2 0 22 → T — or deletion, td, *A → deletion & *T → deletion [5, 16, 35, 36]. Entanglement-enabled substitutions, ts, are manifested as single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), but are distinguishable from classically originated substitutions, SNPs [5, 16, 18]. (Bold italics distinguish entanglement- enabled SNPs, from classically originated SNPs). For example, SNP “driver” mutations originate via entanglement-enabled ts, but classical mechanisms introduce “passenger mutations”, exhibited as SNPs [16, 19]. An entangled enol or imine proton qubit is in state │+ > when it is in position to participate in interstrand hydrogen bonding (Figure 1) and is in state │−> when it is “outside”, in a major or minor DNA groove [16, 17, 18, 19, 38]. The quantum mechanical state of the entangled pair of *G- *C proton qubits can be viewed as a vector in the four- dimensional Hilbert space that describes the quantum position state of two protons. The most general quantum mechanical state of these two protons can be written as [39]. │ψ > = c++│+ + > + c+−│+ − > + c−+│− + > + c−−│− − > (1) Where the first symbol, + or −, represents proton 1 and the second symbol represents proton 2, and the expansion coefficients, c’s, satisfy normalization, │c++│2 + │c+−│2 + │c−+│2 + │c−−│2 = 1. Since Eq (1) cannot be expressed as a tensor product of protons 1 and 2, maximally entangled quantum states for the qubit-pair of imine and enol protons can be written in terms of the four Bell states [40, 41], expressed as │Φ+> = 1/√2 {│+ + > + │− − >} (2) │Φ−> = 1/√2 {│+ + > − │− − >} (3) │φ+ > = 1/√2 {│+ − > + │− + >} (4) │φ− > = 1/√2 {│+ − > − │− + >} (5)

Click to enlarge

Figure 3: Distribution of entangled proton qubit states at a G′-C′ (symmetric) or *G-*C (asymmetric) superposition site. Symmetric, asymmetric and second asymmetric (unlabeled) channels (→) by which metastable keto-amino G-C protons populate enol and imine entangled proton qubit states. Dashed arrows identify pathways for quantum oscillation of enol and imine proton qubits. Approximate electronic structures for hydrogen bond end groups and corresponding proton positions are shown for the metastable keto-amino duplex (a) and for enol and imine entangled proton qubit states, G'-C' (b-e). Electron lone-pairs are represented by double dots, :, and a proton by a circled H. Proton states are specified by a compact notation, using letters G, C, A, T for DNA bases with 2’s and 0’s identifying electron lone-pairs and protons, respectively, donated to the hydrogen bond by – from left to right – the 6-carbon side chain, the ring nitrogen and the 2-carbon side chain. Superscripts identify the component at the outside position (in major and minor groves) as either an amino group proton, designated by 00, or a keto group electron lone-pair, indicated by 22. Superscripts are suppressed for enol and imine groups.) The dimensionality of the Hilbert space required to express the quantum mechanical state for four proton qubits occupying G′-C′ isomer pair super positions is sixteen, i.e., 2N = 24 = 16. Each entangled imine and enol proton is shared between two sets of indistinguishable electron lone-pairs, and thus, participates in entangled quantum oscillations between near symmetric energy wells at ~ 1013 s−1 in decoherence-free subspaces [23, 24, 25, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45] which specifies entangled proton qubit informational-dynamics occupying a heteroduplex heterozygote G′-C′ superposition site [16, 17, 18, 19, 35, 36, 37]. In this case, two sets of entangled imine and enol proton qubits ─ four protons constituting two sets of entangled “qubit-pairs” ─ occupy complementary G′-C′ isomer super positions such that enzyme quantum reader “measurement” of G′-protons specifies, instantaneously, quantum states of the four entangled qubits that occupy the sixteen-dimensional space [10, 11, 12].

Click to enlarge

Figure 4: Pathway for metastable keto-amino A-T protons to populate enol and imine proton qubit states. Dashed arrows indicate proton oscillatory pathway for enol and imine proton qubit *A-*T states Notation is given in Figure 3 legend. The # symbol indicates the position is occupied by ordinary hydrogen unsuitable for hydrogen bonding. Studies of heteroduplex heterozygote G′-C′ sites, with G′ on the transcribed strand, require the enzyme quantum reader to “measure”, specify and execute quantum informational content of sixteen different entangled proton qubit G′-C′ states (Table 1) [16, 17, 18, 19]. In the case of Fig. 5, G′0 0 2 (G′0 0 2 → C, Table 1) the carbon-2 imine proton is in state │− > “groove position”, whereas the eigenstate G′2 0 2 (G′2 0 2 → T, Table 1) has both carbon- 2 imine and carbon-6 enol protons in state │− > “groove positions”. Eigenstate G′2 0 0 (G′2 0 0 → G; “null” mutation) has the carbon-6 enol proton “trapped” in a state │− > DNA groove, but entangled enol and imine protons for eigenstate G′0 0 0 are both in state │+ >, the “interior” interstrand hydrogen bond position. Since the enol and imine entangled protons on G′ are one-half of the four-entangled imine and enol G′-C′ proton qubit-pairs, enzyme quantum reader measurements on G′-proton states specifically select quantum mechanical qubit states, │− > and │+ >, for the four entangled G′-C′ protons. Here the entangled pair ─ guanine carbon-2 imine and cytosine carbon-2 enol ─ are identified, respectively, as proton numbers I and II (Roman numerals). Proton numbers III and IV, respectively, are cytosine carbon-6 imine and guanine carbon-6 enol. Using this notation, the enzyme quantum reader measures the four entangled proton qubit states of G′0 0 2 as │−+−+ >, i.e., guanine imine proton I is in state │− >, cytosine enol proton II is in state │+ >, cytosine imine proton III is in state │− >, and guanine enol proton IV is in state │+ >. Similarly, the proton qubit state for G′2 0 2 is │−++− >, and is │+−+− > for G′2 0 0, and finally, is │+−−+ > for eigenstate G′0 0 0. In addition to the four quantum mechanical states of G′ imposed by enzyme quantum reader measurements (Figure 3b-e), twelve additional states are required to specify the four, two-state quantum mechanical proton qubits. The G′-C′ site superposition consists of two sets of intramolecular entangled proton qubit-pairs that are participating in quantum oscillations, │+> ⇄ │–>, at ~1013 s−1 between near symmetric energy wells in decoherence-free subspaces [16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 24, 25, 45]. Therefore, the most general quantum mechanical state of these four G′-C′ protons is given by │Ψ> = c1│−+−+ > + c2│−−−+ > + c3│−−++ > + c4│−+++ > + c5│−++− > + c6│−−−− > + c7│−+−− > + c8│−−+− > (6) + c9│+−+− > + c10│+++− > + c11│++−− > + c12│+−−− > + c13│+−−+ > + c14│++++ > + c15│+−++ > + c16│++−+ >, Where the ci’s represent, generally complex, expansion coefficients. Since the 16-state superposition of four entangled proton qubits occupy enol and imine “intra- atomic” subspaces, shared between two indistinguishable sets of electron lone pairs, the entangled quantum superposition system will persist in evolutionarily selected decoherence-free subspaces until an invasive perturbation, e.g., “measurement”, exposes the previously “undisturbed” quantum mechanical superposition [16-

19,23-25,,45-46]. Just before enzyme quantum reader measurement of a G′-C′ site, where G′ is on the transcribed strand, the 16-state G´-C´ superposition system is described by Eq (6). In intervals, δt << 10−13 s, the enzyme quantum reader “simultaneously” detects entangled G′-protons I (carbon-2 imine) and IV (carbon-6 enol) in either correlated position states, │−> or │+>, which are components of an entangled proton “qubit- pair”. When proton I or IV is measured by the quantum reader in position state, │−> or │+>, the other member of this entangled pair will, instantaneously, be in the appropriately correlated state, │+> or │−>, respectively. Protons detected in state │−>, “outside” groove position, form “new” entanglement states with the proximal quantum reader [1, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20], which enable enzyme quantum coherence to implement its quantum search, Δt′ ≤ 10_−14_ s. This specifies an incoming electron lone-pair, or amino proton, belonging to the tautomer selected for creating the “correct” complementary mispair (Figure 6). Protons detected in state │+>, “inside” hydrogen bonding position, contribute to specificity of the G′ genetic code, exemplified by both G′2 0 2 and *C2 0 22 “measured as” normal T22 0 22 (Figure 5) via “quantum measurements” that yield observable transcription and replication [16, 17, 18, 19, 35, 36, 42, 43, 44]. Since the quantum reader detects entangled G′-protons I and IV in states │−> or │+>, the “matching” correlated quantum states, │+> or │−>, of entangled C′-protons II and III were instantaneously specified. Consequently, enzyme quantum reader “measurement” on G′-protons I and IV converts, instantaneously, the 16-state quantum system of Eq (6) into the 4-state system ─ ć1│−+−+ >, ć5│−++− >, ć9│+−+− >, ć13│+−−+ > ─ listed in column B of (Table 1) and illustrated in (Figure 3b-e), where expansion coefficients, ći, are defined by ć1 = Σ4i = 1 ci, ć5 = Σ8i = 5 ci, ć9 = Σ12i = 9 ci, and ć13 = Σ16i = 13 ci. This result is displayed in (Table 1) where column A identifies the unperturbed 16- state quantum system of Eq (6). Column B contains the distribution of │−> and │+> proton states ─ for G′-C′ protons: I, II, III, IV ─ generated instantaneously because of the quantum reader initially “measuring” quantum states of entangled G′-protons I and IV. The instantaneously generated quantum states ─ ć1│−+−+ >, ć5│−++− >, ć9│+−+−>, ć13│+−−+ > ─ provide, instantaneously, specific instructions for the enzyme – proton entanglement before it embarks on its entangled enzyme “quantum quest”, Δt′ ≤ 10_−14_ s, of selecting the incoming tautomer specified by molecular evolution, ts requirements [17, 18, 35, 36, 42, 43, 44]. Incoming tautomers selected by entangled enzyme quantum searches are identified in column C and resultant molecular clock substitutions, ts, are listed in column D of Table 1.

Click to enlarge

Figure 5: Approximate proton−electron hydrogen bonding structure “seen by” Grover’s [20] enzyme quantum reader in intervals, δt << 10–13 s, encountering (a) normal thymine, T22 0 22; (b) enzyme-entangled enol-imine G'2 0 2; (c) enzyme- entangled imino cytosine, *C2 0 22, and (d) enzyme- entangled enol-imine G'0 0 2. Notation is specified in Figure 3 legend. In intervals, δt << 10−13 s, the enzyme quantum processor measurement apparatus “traps” entangled G′ imine and/or enol protons — I and IV — in DNA grooves, specified by state │−>, and consequently, the position state, │−> or │+>, is instantaneously specified for the four entangled G′-C′ protons: I, IV and II, III. In column A of Table 1 an entanglement state between the quantum reader and a “groove” proton is indicated by superscript, “*”, e.g., |*−+−+>, identifies G´ proton I as the enzyme – entangled “groove” proton. The “new” entanglement state between the quantum reader and the “trapped” proton enables enzyme quantum coherence to be immediately exploited in implementing an entangled enzyme quantum-search, Δt′ ≤ 10_−14_ s, which ultimately specifies the ts as G′0 0 2 → C, G′2 0 2 → T or G′2 0 0 → G (Table 1). The specificity of each ts is governed by the entangled enzyme quantum search selecting the correct incoming tautomers ─ syn-G22 2 #, syn-A00 2 #, C00 2 22 ─ respectively, for proton qubit eigenstates ─ G′0 0 2, G′2 0 2, G′2 0 0 ─ illustrated in Figure 3, Tables 1 & 2 [17, 18, 35, 36]. Natural selection has exploited entanglement properties of EPR-generated entangled proton qubits which allow enzyme – proton entanglement to specify, and implement, results of an entangled enzyme quantum search in intervals, Δt′ ≤ 10_−14_ s [10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20]. This mechanism implies that enzyme – proton entanglement implementation of an enzyme quantum search would not be successful without instantaneous specification of the four G′ C′ entangled proton qubit states determined by quantum reader “measurements” on the two G′-proton qubits, I and IV, associated with the transcribed strand [10, 11, 12] (Table 1).

Click to enlarge

Figure 6: Complementary transversion mispairs created by enzyme-proton entanglement executing a “truncated” Grover’s quantum search. Complementary mispairs between (a) enol-imine G′002 (Figure 5b) and syn-guanine (syn-G222#) and (b) enol-imine G′202 (Figure 5c) and syn-adenine (syn-A002#). The # symbol indicates the position is occupied by ordinary hydrogen unsuitable for hydrogen bonding.

Grover’s Enzyme – Proton Entanglement Quantum Search

Grover’s-type enzyme quantum reader patrols the double helix along major (~ 22 Å) and minor (~ 12 Å) grooves, creating entanglement states between “measured” enol and imine entangled qubit “groove protons” and proximal enzyme components [16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 38]. The quantum reader polymerase energy source is ATP and it maintains a reservoir of purines, pyrimidines and nucleotides for base pairing operations. Davies has noted that the polymerase protein has a mass of about 10−19 g, and a length of about 10−3 cm and travels at a speed of about 100 bp per sec., or about 10−5 cm s−1 [48, 49]. Curiously, the normal speed of the polymerase, ~ 10−5 cm s−1, corresponds to the limiting speed allowed by the energy-time uncertainty relation for the operation of a quantum clock. For a clock of mass m and size l, Wigner found the relation T < ml2/ħ (7) Equation (7) can be expressed in terms of a velocity inequality given by v > ħ/m l (8) which, for this polymerase, yields a minimum velocity of about 10−5 cm s−1, implying the quantum reader enzyme speed of operation can be confined by a form of quantum synchronization uncertainty [48, 50]. The quantum reader “measurement apparatus” has been evolutionarily selected to decipher, process and exploit informational content within DNA base pairs composed of either (a) the classical keto-amino state, (b) undisturbed, enol and imine entangled proton qubit states — Eqs (2 – 6) — including enzyme – proton entanglements participating in an entangled enzyme quantum search, Δt´ ≤ 10_−14_ s [16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 31, 42, 43, 44, 45]. The enzyme quantum measurement-operator is identified by Μ, and operates on G′-proton states located on the transcribed strand to yield three different entanglement states between groove protons and enzyme components. From column B of Table 1 these enzymatic quantum “measurements”, and resulting enzyme-proton entanglements, can be represented by Μ│−+−+ > = ć1│−+−+ >Êp_I (9) Μ│−++− > = ć5_│−++− >Êp_I, _p_IV (10) Μ│+−+− > = ć9_│+−+− >ÊpIV, (11) where Êp_I, _p_IV in Eq (10) represents quantum entanglement between “groove” proton I (_G′2 0 2-imine) and “groove” proton IV (G′2 0 2-enol) and proximal enzyme components. Similarly, Êp_I and ÊpIV_ , represent alternative entanglements between enzyme components and entangled proton I, and separately, entangled proton IV, respectively. The original unperturbed groove proton’s “quantumness” becomes distributed over an enzyme “entanglement site”, which is selected to complete its assignment of specifying the complementary mispair before proton decoherence, i.e., Δt′ < τD < 10−13 s [16, 17, 18, 19, 31]. Each of the three enzyme-proton entanglements implements a different “selective” quantum search, Δt′ ≤ 10_−14_ s to specify the correct evolutionarily required purine or pyrimidine tautomer to properly complete the molecular clock base substitution, ts, by a quantum processing Topal-Fresco substitution-replication mechanism (Tables 1 & 2; Figure 6) [16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 35, 36, 42, 43, 44, 45, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57]. Since quantum informational content is deciphered by enzymatic processing of entangled proton qubits shared between two indistinguishable sets of electron lone-pairs, the entangled enzyme quantum search mechanism is assumed to initially select the incoming tautomer, based on electron lone-pair, or amino proton, availability. Evidently the “evolved” quantum reader has an immediately accessible “reservoir” of required tautomers for quantum search selection [17, 18, 19, 47]. Evidence discussed here implies EPR-generated entangled proton qubits are “measured”, δt <<10–13 s, by Grover’s [20] quantum reader-processor, which specifies an entangled enzyme quantum search, where quantum information processing, Δtʹ ≤ 10–14 s, is executed [1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 42, 43, 44, 45, 54, 55, 56]. The evolutionarily available purine and pyrimidine database is “searched” for the “matching” classical tautomer required to execute an “in progress” complementary mispair formation before proton decoherence, τD < 10–13 s [16, 17, 18, 19, 31]. The initial component of the complementary mispair ─ the selected eigenstate ─ was specified by “new” quantum entanglement between the “trapped” entangled groove proton and the enzyme quantum reader (Table 1). The enzyme – proton entanglement implements a quantum search which specifies ─ in intervals, Δt′ ≤ 10_−14_ s ─ the incoming electron lone-pair, or amino proton, belonging to the tautomer required to create the complementary mispair (Figure 6; Table 1) [16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 31]. This allows quantum coherence of the entangled ribozyme and/or enzyme to specify the ts or td, and thus, enable entanglement-directed genomic evolution [1, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 44, 45, 51]. Grover’s-type [20] measurements of entangled proton qubit states occupying G´-C´, *G-*C and *A-*T sites specify instructions for quantum information processing execution, which generate time-dependent substitutions, ts exhibited as ─ G′2 0 2 → T, G′0 0 2 → C, *G0 2 00 → A & *C2 0 22 →T (Tables 1 & 2; Figure 3) but time-dependent deletions, td, are manifested as *A → deletion and *T → deletion (Figure 4) [17, 18, 35, 36]. Measurements identify the relation, rates ts ≥ 1.5-fold rates td; so, ts + td generates random genetic drift which explains the slight A-T richness exhibited by human genomic systems [19, 35, 36, 47, 51, 52, 53, 58]. The EPR-entanglement algorithm yields molecular clock ts and td, after (i) an initial formation of enzyme-proton entanglement, δt << 10−13 s, (ii) quantum information processing via an enzyme entanglement-assisted quantum search (Δt′ ≤ 10_−14_ s), (iii) selection of the next amino acid for protein growth, (iv) specification of the “correct” complementary mispair (Figure 6) and (v) selected replication-substitution or deletion with classical tautomers containing decohered protons [1, 2, 16, 17, 18, 19, 35, 36, 44]. Consistent with implementing steps ─ (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v) ─ ts and td can introduce and eliminate initiation codons — UUG, CUG, AUG, GUG — and termination codons, UGA, UAA, UAG [1, 2, 16, 17, 18]. The resulting “dynamic mutations” can cause susceptible microsatellites [2, 17, 18, 59, 60, 61, 62], e.g., (CAG)n (n > 36), to exhibit deletions and/or expansions ≥ 10 (CAG) repeats in 20 y [2, 16, 59, 61, 62]. This observable expansion/contraction mechanism [1, 2, 16, 17, 18, 59, 60] can account for genomic growth, over the past ~3.5 billion y, from primordial RNA [63, 64, 65, 66] to 21st century DNA of ~ 6.8 ×109 base pairs [1, 2, 47, 51].

measurements of entangled proton qubit states are identified in the right-hand column Consistent with observation and analyses neither water, ionic incursions or random temperature fluctuations obstruct quantum information processing, Δtʹ ≤ 10–14 s < τD executed by evolving rat and human genomes [16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 31, 42, 43, 44, 45, 67]. Since EPR entanglement-enabled quantum information processes are available to evolving rat and human microsatellite distributions evolution arguments imply that analogous quantum information processing algorithms are operationally available to Homo sapiens’ brain-cell DNA [7, 9, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 68, 69, 70]. In this case, analogous quantum information processing algorithms are routinely operational in DNA of human brain-cells which are embedded within an evolutionarily selected neural circuitry [7, 16, 17, 18, 19, 68, 69, 70]. Consequently, quantum information processing, Δtʹ ≤ 10–14 s executed by a single brain-cell could communicate the resulting quantum- informational calculations to the brain’s neuronal network of ~ billons of neurons[16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 31]. Otherwise, EPR-generated entangled proton qubits are available for quantum information processing exhibited by evolving rat and human DNA, but – for some evolutionary reason – availability of EPR-generated, entangled proton qubits is not utilized for cognitive processes to implement quantum information processing, which would enable existence of human consciousness [7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 44, 54, 55, 56]. Therefore, this report argues that human consciousness is a consequence of an evolutionarily coordinated network of entanglement-enabled, quantum information processing executed by human brain-cells, whose orchestrated quantum information processing allows manifestation of human consciousness[7, 8, 9, 10, 16, 17, 18, 19, 68, 69, 70].

Origin of Sustainable Life (OoSL) Emerging from EPR-Proton Qubits within RNA – Ribozyme Polymers

Based on “classical-only” arguments for survival considerations, RNA − ribozyme evolution would be a “dead end” [3, 4, 5, 63, 64, 65, 66]. But subsequent genomic evolutionary history implies selection of “enhanced efficiency” for information processing by primordial ribozyme – RNA systems [1, 47, 66]. This is explained by acquisition of “T4 phage-like” entanglement-enabled information processing where EPR-generated entangled proton qubits emerged in ancestral duplex ribozyme – RNA segments [1, 5, 10, 11, 12, 16, 19, 35, 36, 44]. Consequently, primordial genomic information acquired entanglement resources which allowed necessary entanglement-enabled information processing to be incrementally developed (Figure 8), consistent with predictions of the quantum entanglement algorithm [1, 16, 17, 18, 19]. A schematic of implied entanglement-enabled incremental increases in “genomic versatility” is illustrated in Figure 8. This model implies life’s origin emerged, and was sustained, in terms of sequential, entanglement-enabled evolutionary increments [13, 14, 15, 16]. A set of increment arrows (→) in Figure 8 identifies the following sequential (or simultaneous) developments over the three phases of primordial evolution: monomers → oligomers → ribozymes → duplication of nucleotides → duplex RNA polymer segments → entangled proton qubits → ribozyme – proton entanglements → quantum transcription of entangled qubit-pairs → quantum translation of entangled qubit information → quantum selection of triplet code → construct polypeptides → enzymes from ribozyme – proton entanglements → replication via enzymes → introduction of repair enzymes → genome chemistry selection, RNA replaced by DNA → duplex DNA genomes, etc.

Click to enlarge

Figure 8: Evolutionary increments during “classical” chemical – physical evolution (dark blue), and during entangled proton qubit-enabled RNA evolution (light blue), yielding duplex DNA systems of regular “biological evolution” (white background). Earliest life-forms are identified at – 4x109 y and earliest stromatolites at – 3.7x109 y [97]. This OoSL (origin of sustainable life) model implies quantum entanglement algorithms, developed and implemented in ancestral RNA – protein systems, were subsequently retained and refined within evolving duplex DNA systems. Classical mechanisms do not explain evolutionary processes between ~ –4.1x109 y and ~ – 3.7x109 y, but EPR-entanglement algorithm processes provide plausible explanations in terms of quantum information processing [5, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 42, 43, 44, 54, 55, 56, 97]. This argument allows explanations for origins of quantum information processing algorithms exhibited by ancient T4 phage DNA, rodent – human microsatellite DNA evolution, and 21st-century human genomic systems [16- 18,21,35-37,42-44,51,59-61,77,98,]. In this treatment, a reverse-time extrapolation — of proton quantum dynamics required for observable quantum information processing exhibited by ancient T4 phage DNA— appears applicable to analogous, metabolically inert duplex RNA segments occupying primordial pools (0 0C to 20 0C, pH 7) of ribozyme ‒ RNA systems [1, 5, 35, 36, 37, 63, 64, 65, 66, 91, 98]. Based on ribozyme – RNA evidence, ancestral RNA genomic structures were susceptible to significant evolutionary pressures that allowed Darwinian selection to exploit “advantageous” applications of quantum information theory [1, 5, 47, 54, 55, 56, 63, 64, 65, 66]. This involved (a) the creation and measurement of entangled proton informational qubits, (b) quantum/classical genomic informational interfaces, and (c) enzyme – proton entanglements that implement quantum searches, Δt′ ≤ 10_−14_ s, to specify synthesis information for a “new” base pair, evolutionary molecular clock event, ts [1, 2, 10, 16, 17, 18, 19, 31, 35, 36, 44]. Also, replacement of ribozyme function with protein enzymes implies peptide-ribozyme – proton entanglement processes selected relevant amino acids to construct the protein enzyme replacement of ribozymes. When ancestral RNA genomes became too massive for acceptable “error-free” duplication, rudimentary repair enzymes were invoked that selected DNA over duplex RNA [1, 89, 99]. Although enzymatic quantum information processing provided a selective advantage for duplex RNA, as living RNA systems became more complex and versatile, the duplex RNA genome became too “massive” for acceptable error-free duplication [1, 2, 5, 99]. Consequently, rudimentary genome-duplication “repair” systems were introduced that selected DNA over duplex RNA, thereby yielding a “reduced error” genome- duplication system. In this case, quantum processing information enzymes (QPIE) gradually expedited genomic evolution from (i) the era of pre-LUCA RNA “genome-like” polymers, (ii) to the “complete” duplex RNA genome, (iii) to the RNA-DNA reverse transcriptase genome, (iv) to double helical DNA genomes. These postulated four stages of pre-cellular genome evolution, and contents of their corresponding primordial pools, are schematically represented in Figure 9 (from Koonin et al. with permission) [66]. This model implies a form of Grover’s-type [20] quantum information processing has been operational over the past ~ 3.6 or so billion y [16, 17, 18, 19]. The quantum reader was refined during the developmental era of duplex RNA genomes, and has been retained and “fine- tuned” for analogous operations in double helical DNA systems [16, 35, 36, 37, 51, 52, 53, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66]. Consequently, accumulated entangled proton qubit states within G′-C′, *G-*C and *A-*T sites of modern double helical DNA are “transparent” to the recently evolved DNA repair system, but are recognized and processed by the “earlier evolved” RNA system where enzyme-proton quantum entanglements implemented molecular clock, ts and td [1, 16, 17, 18, 19, 44, 51, 89]. Soon after genome conversion from duplex RNA to double helical DNA [47, 99], rates of keto-amino → enol-imine arrangement (Figure 3) responsible for ts were reduced by ~ 50- to 100-fold, because of 5-methyluracil (thymine) replacing uracil and cytosine replacing 5HMC [98]. This quantum-based evolutionary selection provided a “favorable” ts:td ratio, exhibited as stochastic random genetic drift for double helical DNA. Observation that rates ts (τ ≈ 3200 y) ≥ 1.5-fold td (τ ≈ 6000 y) implies a slight A-T richness, consistent with model prediction [17, 18, 35, 36, 52, 53, 58]. Observable, stochastic random genetic drift is a consequence of EPR entanglement- enabled ts + td [16, 17, 18, 19, 52, 53, 58].

Click to enlarge

Figure 9. Evolution of genomic lineages from the primordial gene pool (from (Figure 2) with permission) [66]. Characteristic images of RNA and protein structures are shown for each postulated stage of evolution, and characteristic virion images are shown for emerging classes of viruses. Thin arrows show the postulated movement of genetic pools between inorganic compartments. Block arrows show the origin of different classes of viruses at different stages of pre-cellular evolution.) A reverse-time extrapolation from observables exhibited by ancient T4 phage DNA implies that entangled proton qubits could have originally emerged in the first “susceptible” ancestral duplex segments of primitive RNA – ribozyme systems [35, 36, 63, 64, 65, 66, 98]. This assumption requires primordial ribozyme – RNA duplex segments to simulate, approximately, conditions exhibited by ancient T4 phage DNA systems that accumulate EPR-generated entangled proton qubits in metabolically inert (extracellular pH 7, 20 0C) base pair isomer superpositions, observed as G′-C′, *G-*C and *A-*T [17, 18, 35, 36, 37]. This scenario provides a possible source of “RNA-type” hydrogen bonded duplex molecules susceptible to occupancy by EPR-generated entangled proton qubits [16, 17, 18, 19, 35, 36], and thus, allowed ancestral peptide-ribozyme – RNA systems to form entanglement states with oscillating, │+> ⇄ │–>, entangled proton qubits, occupying decoherence-free subspaces within hydrogen bonded duplex RNA segments [10, 11, 12, 23, 24, 25, 34, 45, 63, 64, 65, 66, 100]. At this stage of evolutionary development, peptide-ribozyme – proton entanglements could implement an entanglement-directed quantum search, Δt′ ≤ 10‒14 s < τD < 10−13 s to select the next amino acid electron lone-pair, or amino proton, to be added to the pre-protein peptide polymer [[1, 5, 16, 31, 47]. Additionally before proton decoherence, τD < 10−13 s, operations of the entangled ribozyme – proton system included (a) generating a transcribed message based on quantum informational content of “measured” entangled proton qubit-pairs (b) implementing an entanglement- directed quantum search, Δt′ ≤ 10_−14_ s that specifies the incoming base’s electron lone-pair, or amino proton, for evolutionary substitution, ts, or deletion, td, and (c) feedback responding ─ “Yes” or “No” ─ to translation of the transcribed “qubit message” [16, 17, 18, 19, 31, 35, 36]. “Yes” implies existence of an “r+-_type” allele which allows replication initiation, but “No” identifies an unacceptable “mutant allele”, _rII, and therefore, replication is denied. Before “DNA-type” repair enzymes were introduced RNA – ribozyme systems avoided evolutionary extinction by disallowing conserved, “rII-type” allele contribution to the gene pool when “excessive” EPR-generated mutations (entangled qubits) were present [1, 16, 35, 36, 47, 89, 100]. Other “relaxed” genes were allowed mutation, variation and selection. These processes introduced viable peptide- ribozyme – RNA, wild-type “r+-systems” where peptide- ribozyme – proton entanglements were exploited to generate rudimentary peptide chains that subsequently usurped ribozyme functions. When duplex RNA genomes became “too massive” for efficient, “error-free” duplication, “repair” enzymes were selected that ultimately replaced RNA with DNA, thereby introducing DNA – protein systems [1, 2, 5, 16, 47, 89, 99]. Participation of EPR-generated entangled proton qubits eliminates the necessity of a Many Worlds in One (MWO) hypothesis for origin and existence of life on planet Earth. Koonin’s classical assessments imply nascent DNA – protein systems (“biological evolution” in Figure 8) possess sufficient evolution potential to evolve into more complex living systems and organisms. In this case, Koonin’s MWO hypothesis ─ that the probability of existence of any possible evolutionary scenario in an infinite multi verse is exactly 1 ─ is not required [5, 16, 17, 18, 19]. When EPR-generated entangled proton qubits are not ignored ─ as done in original studies of time-dependent evolution dynamics exhibited by (i) T4 phage DNA [35, 36, 37], (ii) age-related human cancer [19, 42, 77], (iii) rodent- human microsatellite distributions [17, 18, 21], (iv) Huntington’s disease [16, 44, 59, 61], etc. ─ the MWO hypothesis is not required to explain origin and evolution of life on an “Earth-like” planet in Earth’s universe. The introduction of EPR-generated entangled proton qubits allows life-forming polymers to originate in an ancestral RNA – ribozyme system, where bio-molecular quantum processors simulate a “truncated” Grover’s [20] quantum search to “measure” entangled proton qubit states, which provides a hypothesis for origin of the triplet code, utilizing 43 codons and ~ 22 L-amino acids. Consequently, ribozyme-peptide “processing” of entangled proton qubits could generate RNA – protein systems where “repair” enzymes ultimately intercede to replace unstable RNA with DNA [1, 10, 11, 12, 89]. Subsequent quantum entanglement algorithmic processing of entangled proton qubit-pairs allows DNA – protein systems to further evolve on Earth as observed and originate and evolve on other “Earth-like” planets in Earth’s universe so, the MWO hypothesis is not required [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 16, 17, 18, 19, 51, 52, 53].

Genomic Growth via EPR-Generated “Dynamic Mutation”

Quantum informational content is introduced into heteroduplex heterozygote G′-C′ and *G-*C isomer pairs, and *A-*T superpositions, by EPR-generated entangled proton qubit-pairs (Figures 1-4) — keto-amino ―(entanglement)→ enol−imine — observed as, G-C → G´- C´, G-C → *G-*C, A-T →A-*T [16, 17, 18]. Entanglement-enabled replication of G′-C′ and *G-*C yields ts, expressed as G′2 0 2 → T, G′0 0 2 → C, *G0 2 00 → A & *C2 0 22 → T (Tables 1 & 2) but entanglement-enabled replication of *A-*T sites (Figure 4) exhibits time-dependent deletions, td, i.e., *A → deletion and *T → deletion [17, 18, 35, 36, 44]. Observable EPR-generated entangled proton qubit state superpositions — G′-C′, *G-*C, *A-*T — are not recognized by “recently” evolved DNA repair systems, but are recognized and processed by enzyme-proton entanglement systems that evidently emerged in pre- LUCA (last universal cellular ancestor) RNA – ribozyme duplex segments [1, 5, 16, 17, 18, 19, 35, 36, 37, 42, 43, 44, 47, 63, 64, 65, 66, 77, 89]. Entangled proton qubits populating ancestral RNA duplex segments enabled peptide-ribozyme – proton entanglements the opportunity to “fabricate” polypeptides that ultimately replaced ribozyme function. Based on measured quantum informational content embodied within the 20 available entangled proton qubit states occupying G′-C′, *G-*C and *A-*T superposition sites a rationale is implied for a “coding principle” that specified a redundant triplet genetic code of 43 codons for ~ 22 L-amino acids [5, 16, 17, 18, 19]. Within this context, a “truncated” Grover’s [20] quantum search could simulate, approximately, bio-molecular quantum “measurements” of entangled proton qubit states, which implies a mechanism ─ Eq (15) ─ for selecting the triplet genetic code of 43 codons for ~ 22 L-amino acids. In this case, entanglement-enabled information processing introduced ts — G′2 0 2 → U, G′0 0 2 → 5HMC00222, 5HM*C2 0 22 → U, *G0 2 00 → A — and td, *A → deletion & *T → deletion. Consistent with emergence of EPR-generated enzyme – proton entanglement processing in ancestral RNA an “evolved” quantum entanglement algorithm created ts and td in ancestral RNA and DNA genomes, which can introduce, and eliminate, initiation codons ─ UUG, CUG, AUG, GUG ─ and termination codons ─ UAA, UGA, UAG ─ thereby causing “dynamic mutations” that exhibit expansions and contractions[1-5,10-12, 16-19, ,44, 47, 59- 62,63-66]. If genomic growth over the past ~ 3.5 billion years were consequences of entanglement-enabled ts + td introducing “dynamic mutations”, “susceptible” microsatellite content in a genome would be proportional to genome size of the prokaryote or eukaryote organism, which is consistent with observation [16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 47, 59, 60, 61, 101]. In duplex DNA of human genomes, unstable repeats exhibit expansions and contractions via “dynamic mutations”, which in the case of (CAG)n sequences (n > 36), can exhibit expansions ≥ 10 (CAG) repeats in 20 y [16, 17, 18, 19, 44, 59, 60, 61, 62]. This observation implies the hypothesis that susceptible ancestral genomes implemented EPR- dependent, dynamic mutation expansions as consequences of effective ts + td, introducing and eliminating, initiation and termination codons [16, 17, 18, 19, 44, 47, 59, 60, 61]. A “net” triplet repeat dynamic mutation expansion rate of 13 repeats, e.g., (CAG)13 = 39 bp, per 20

y for 3.5 billion y would generate a genome of ~ 6.8 × 109 bp, which is “ballpark” compatible with bp content of the Homo sapiens’ genome[16, 17, 18, 19, 44, 59, 60, 61]. This explanation predicts that each organism’s genomic growth will continue until a “stable” ts:td ratio is achieved. DNA genomes of T4 bacteriophage have evidently achieved this ts:td ratio stability[98]. Since rates, Σi d/dt(tsi + tdi), are a function of microsatellite availability, which can be increased, or eliminated, by ts and/or td, a “stable” ts:td ratio has not been established for H. sapiens’ eukaryotic genome; so, this entanglement-enabled evolution mechanism implies a rationale for origin and existence of “dynamic” CNGS [16-19,21, ,44, 59-60, 87-88].

Gatekeeper Gene’s “Score Card” for “Tolerable” EPR-Generated Entangled Proton Qubits

Over the past ~ 3.5 or so billion years, pre-cellular prokaryotic and eukaryotic evolution had ample opportunity to select preferable, advantageous mechanisms for protecting the gene pool, and conserved noncoding genomic spaces (CNGS) against acquiring unsafe levels of entangled proton qubits in haploid and diploid genomes [1, 2, 18, 19, 35, 36, 37, 42, 47, 51, 52, 53, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 77, 97, 87, 88]. Although DNA repair enzymes were acquired during transitions from ancestral RNA to DNA genomes [1, 5, 16, 47, 66, 89, 99], the originally selected quantum entanglement algorithm for RNA genomic evolution (Figure 8) was retained, and further refined, for entanglement-originated ts and td in DNA systems. Consequently, all phases of haploid and diploid genomic DNA evolution ─ precellular, prokaryotic, eukaryotic ─ were successfully executed under conditions of continuous accumulations of EPR-generated entangled proton qubits, subsequently deciphered by enzyme – proton entanglements to yield ts and td, exhibited as SNPs that enabled “dynamic mutation” expansions [5, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 44, 47, 52, 53, 59]. The evolutionarily selected, continuous acquisition of EPR-generated entangled proton qubits implies necessity of an evolutionary mechanism that “protects” against consequences of “unchecked” accumulations of entangled proton qubits, which would be “unsafe” if contributed to the gene pool [16, 17, 18, 19, 35, 36, 42, 43]. Consistent with observation and theory, a sensitive CNGS, s, for Homo sapiens can be defined by the inequality, 1 ≥ s ≥ 0.97 [10, 11, 12, 16, 18, 19, 20, 35, 36, 42, 43, 44, 45, 87, 88]. This inequality is based on ~100 y as the maximally allowed Homo sapiens’ age, and experimental measurements of mean lifetimes, τ, for metastable keto-amino G-C states in genomic DNA (370C; pH 7), τ ≥ 3000 y [35, 36, 44]. Thus, at age 100 y, ~ 3% (100/3000x100) of G-C sites in the Homo sapiens’ genome would have been populated by EPR- generated, entangled proton qubit arrangements, keto- amino → enol-imine, via the symmetric and asymmetric channels, G-C → G′-C′ and G-C → *G-*C (Figures 1-4). Subsequent enzyme – proton entanglement processing (Table 1) introduces ts (and td at *A-*T pairs). Accordingly, robust Homo sapiens infants inherit normal “wild type” CNGS inequality, 1 ≥ s ≥ 0.97. EPR-generated entangled proton qubits provide entanglement-enabled mechanisms for mutation, variation, selection and genome growth, until proton qubit accumulation satisfies the “threshold condition”, s ≈ 0.97 + ϵ, generally at an advanced age (Figure 7). When EPR-generated entangled proton qubits satisfy the “threshold condition” — s ≈ 0.97 + ε — the probability is significantly enhanced that the subsequent round of ts + td will express selected SNP mutant proteins responsible for elimination of haploid genomes [16, 17, 18, 19, 42, 43, 44, 77, 78, 79, 80, 82, 92]. In these cases, conserved “gatekeeper” genes are eliminated by spermatogenesis or oogenesis in the haploid state, but manifest an age-related degenerative disease in the diploid state [16, 17, 18, 19]. If conserved “gatekeeper” genes had been populated to the threshold limit, i.e., to s ≈ 0.97 + ε, and were then contributed to the gene pool, rapid evolutionary extinction would ensue [16, 36, 44, 90]. Consequently, “unsafe” haploid genomes are eliminated during spermatogenesis and oogenesis, thereby preserving “wild type” gene pool viabilities, and enabling species survival [16]. However diploid genomes populated to “unsafe” threshold limits, s ≈ 0.97 + ε, encounter discrimination by conserved “gatekeeper” genes e.g., “cancer genes”, “Alzheimer’s genes” the huntingtin gene “ALS genes” the progeria gene and “other” genes [16, 17, 18, 19, 61, 62, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 94, 95, 102, 103]. In these cases, ts + td introduce specific SNPs which cause manifestation of the respective age-related degenerative disease [16, 18, 19, 42, 43, 44]. An example of “gatekeeper” genes’ operational mechanism is provide by a quantum entanglement algorithm explanation of haploid human oocytes’ function ‒ normal menopause ‒ in terms of Orgel’s “error catastrophe” hypothesis. Routine EPR-generated entangled proton qubits introduce mutation, variation and selection in terms of entanglement-enabled SNPs [16, 18, 19, 104, 105]. However, when CNGS, s (1 ≥ s ≥ 0.97 + ϵ), of “gatekeeper” genes acquire EPR-generated entangled proton qubits to their “threshold limit”, i.e., to s ≈ 0.97 + ε, such “evolutionarily depleted” genes are disallowed contributions to the gene pool, due to selected, EPR-generated “error catastrophe” criteria [10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 105].

Internal female oocytes operate in 37 0C environments, but “external” male haploid genomes are in environments of reduced temperature, ~ 340 C [106]. Vibrational modes in the DNA double helix are more energetic at 37 0C than at ~ 340 C; so, more energetic vibrational modes would increase probabilities of quantum uncertainty limits, Δx Δpx ≥ ћ/2, operating on metastable amino (−NH2) protons, which generate EPR arrangements, keto-amino → enol-imine (see Appendix) [107, 108]. Consequently, observed rates of accumulating entangled proton qubit- pairs are ~ 3-fold greater in 37 0C oocyte DNA than in ~ 34 0C sperm [36, 106, 107]. Therefore, evolutionarily selected thresholds, s (1 ≥ s ≥ 0.97 + ϵ), in CNGS of oocytes are populated — to the “threshold limit”, s ≈ 0.97 + ϵ — at ~ 3-fold enhanced rates for EPR-generated entangled proton qubits, compared to EPR-qubit rates in ~ 34 0C sperm DNA [42, 43, 106]. When the “threshold limit” s- value is attained, s ≈ 0.97 + ϵ, the haploid oocyte CNGS has been “evolutionarily depleted” by its acquired limit of EPR-generated entangled proton qubits [16, 18, 19]. Such “unsafe” haploid genomes are evolutionarily disallowed contribution to the gene pool by menopause [104]. This prevents “unsafe” contamination of the gene pool, which enables species’ survival at the expense of sacrificing an “operational”, but evolutionarily depleted, host genome [1, 16, 42, 43, 44]. In this case, normal human menopause is implemented by “gatekeeper” genes that disallow haploid genomes ― containing “unsafe” levels of EPR-generated entangled proton qubits ― from contributions to the gene pool [16, 18, 19, 104]. This allows the “gene pool” to retain an approximately “wild-type” spectrum of conserved genes that exhibit age-related disease as consequences of EPR-generated SNP [16, 18, 19, 92]. Evidently this temperature-dependent, ~ 3 to 4 0C, haploid selection of female genomes has provided female H. sapiens with a slightly longer life-span than males [104]. “Gatekeeper” genes preserve “wild type” gene pool viability and enable species’ survival by eliminating ‒ from the gene pool ‒ evolutionarily depleted, “unsafe” genomes. Operational functions of “gatekeeper” genes provide a quantum entanglement version of Orgel’s “error catastrophe” hypothesis. In this case, quantum uncertainty limits, Δx Δpx ≥ ћ/2, operate on hydrogen bonding amino protons to introduce EPR-generated entangled proton qubits. When CNGS, s (1 ≥ s ≥ 0.97), of “gatekeeper” genes acquire entangled proton qubits to their “threshold limits”, i.e., to s ≈ 0.97 + ε, such genes are disallowed contributions to the gene pool, due to “excessive” EPR-generated entangled proton qubits viewed classically as “error catastrophe” criteria [16, 17, 18, 19, 77, 78, 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 104, 105].

Classical evolution theory claims that natural “purifying” selection would eliminate deleterious genes that accumulate “unsafe” entangled proton qubits, including “cancer genes”, “Alzheimer’s genes”, the huntingtin gene, the progeria gene, “ALS genes” (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) and “other” genes, which did not happen. Rather these evolutionarily conserved “beneficial genes” have been retained to execute their necessary “gatekeeper” functions of disallowing contributions to the gene pool by genomes that have acquired EPR-generated entangled proton qubits to “unsafe” levels, i.e., to s ≈ 0.97 + ϵ [16, 18, 19, 42, 43, 44, 47, 52, 53, 61, 62, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 92, 94, 95, 102, 103, 104, 109, 110]. This prevents “unsafe” contamination of the gene pool by excessive EPR-generated entangled proton qubits, which enables species’ survival at the expense of sacrificing “operational”, but evolutionarily depleted, host genomes [16, 17, 18, 19, 104].