pith. sign in

arxiv: 2508.21490 · v2 · submitted 2025-08-29 · 🧬 q-bio.NC · quant-ph

Testing quantum-like markers in neural dynamics

Partha Ghose , Dimitris Pinotsis This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 20:50 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🧬 q-bio.NC quant-ph
keywords quantum markersneural dynamicsFitzhugh-Nagumo equationcable equationsubthreshold oscillationsaxonal propagationquantum biologyneural data
0
0 comments X

The pith

Two experiments can identify quantum markers in neural data by comparing activity to quantum versions of the Fitzhugh-Nagumo and cable equations.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper proposes two concrete experiments to search for quantum effects in brain cells. One checks whether power spectra from subthreshold oscillations in neuronal cultures match a quantum variant of the Fitzhugh-Nagumo equation or stay with the classical form. The second examines whether statistics of electrical propagation along axons follow a quantum version of the cable equation rather than the usual diffusive one. A sympathetic reader would care because these tests offer a direct way to look for quantum-like behavior in neural dynamics using measurable quantities. If the quantum predictions fit the data better, it would mean quantum mechanics supplies useful markers for how signals move and oscillate in neurons.

Core claim

The paper claims that quantum markers in neural dynamics can be identified by testing whether power spectra from subthreshold oscillations in neuronal cultures follow a quantum variant of the Fitzhugh-Nagumo equations rather than the classical ones, and whether propagation statistics of electrical activity in axons follow a quantum variant of the cable equation rather than the classical diffusive version.

What carries the argument

Quantum variants of the Fitzhugh-Nagumo and cable equations that describe electrical signal propagation on axonal arbors and dendrites.

If this is right

  • Power spectra measurements could reveal whether quantum effects alter the frequency content of subthreshold oscillations.
  • Axonal propagation data could indicate non-classical spread of signals if the quantum cable equation provides a better fit.
  • These comparisons supply a practical route to detect quantum markers in standard neural recordings.
  • Successful distinction between the models would allow mapping possible quantum influences onto neural computation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same strategy of introducing quantum variants could be applied to other standard neural models such as Hodgkin-Huxley to search for additional markers.
  • If the tests succeed, they could prompt revisions in how information processing is modeled in neural circuits.
  • The experiments might be extended to in vivo recordings to check whether quantum signatures appear in intact brains.

Load-bearing premise

Quantum variants of the Fitzhugh-Nagumo and cable equations are physically plausible models for neural activity and that experimental measurements can reliably distinguish them from the classical versions.

What would settle it

Power spectra from neuronal cultures or axonal propagation statistics that match neither the classical nor the proposed quantum versions of the respective equations would show the markers cannot be identified this way.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.21490 by Dimitris Pinotsis, Partha Ghose.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Schematic of the stochastic dynamics modeled by the classical Telegrapher’s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Schematic diagram of the proposed Y-shaped axonal branching structure. A single [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Classical cable theory predictions (blue) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A Dirac-inspired stochastic model prediction (green). The stochastic model shows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Arrival probability distributions at varying Poisson switching rates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We propose two experiments for identifying quantum markers in neural data based on quantum variants of well-known equations for neural activity that describe electrical signal propagation on axonal arbors and dendrites. These include (i) testing if power spectra from subthreshold oscillations in neuronal cultures follow the classical Fitzgugh-Nagumo equations or a recently introduced quantum variant of them and (ii) testing if propagation statistics of electrical activity in axons follow the classical diffusive cable equation or a quantum variant of it.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes two experiments to identify quantum markers in neural dynamics. Experiment (i) compares power spectra of subthreshold oscillations in neuronal cultures against predictions from the classical Fitzhugh-Nagumo equations versus a quantum variant. Experiment (ii) compares propagation statistics of electrical activity along axons against the classical cable equation versus a quantum variant.

Significance. If the quantum variants can be shown to produce unique, measurable signatures that survive decoherence and if the experiments can be executed with adequate controls, the work would supply falsifiable tests for quantum-like effects in established neural models, which could stimulate targeted experiments in quantum biology. The proposal is grounded in familiar classical equations and points to external data as arbiter, but its significance is currently constrained by the absence of derivations and quantitative predictions.

major comments (2)
  1. Abstract: the proposal rests on 'quantum variants' of the Fitzhugh-Nagumo and cable equations, yet no derivation from a Hamiltonian, master equation, or quantum treatment of ion-channel or membrane dynamics is supplied; without this step the claimed spectral and statistical distinctions cannot be evaluated as physically motivated rather than ad-hoc extensions.
  2. Abstract and proposal sections: decoherence timescales at 300 K are not quantified or compared to neural oscillation periods or propagation times, leaving open whether any deviation from classical predictions would indicate genuine quantum dynamics or merely an arbitrary model modification.
minor comments (1)
  1. Abstract: 'Fitzgugh-Nagumo' is a typographical error for 'Fitzhugh-Nagumo'.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which identify important clarifications needed to strengthen the physical motivation of the proposed experiments. We address each major comment below and indicate the corresponding revisions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract: the proposal rests on 'quantum variants' of the Fitzhugh-Nagumo and cable equations, yet no derivation from a Hamiltonian, master equation, or quantum treatment of ion-channel or membrane dynamics is supplied; without this step the claimed spectral and statistical distinctions cannot be evaluated as physically motivated rather than ad-hoc extensions.

    Authors: The referee correctly observes that the manuscript does not contain an explicit derivation of the quantum variants. These variants originate from prior theoretical work in which the classical equations are quantized by treating membrane potential or ion-channel states as quantum operators under specific coherence assumptions. In the revised manuscript we will insert a concise summary of this derivation (including the relevant Hamiltonian or master-equation steps) together with the original references, placed in a new subsection of the proposal. This addition will allow readers to judge whether the predicted distinctions are physically grounded. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Abstract and proposal sections: decoherence timescales at 300 K are not quantified or compared to neural oscillation periods or propagation times, leaving open whether any deviation from classical predictions would indicate genuine quantum dynamics or merely an arbitrary model modification.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative comparison with decoherence times is required. The revised version will include order-of-magnitude estimates of decoherence timescales for neural membranes at physiological temperature, drawn from the quantum-biology literature, and will directly compare these times with the periods of subthreshold oscillations (∼10–100 ms) and axonal propagation delays. The comparison will be added to both the abstract and the detailed experimental sections so that any observed deviation can be interpreted in the context of plausible coherence windows. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: experimental proposal relies on external data as arbiter

full rationale

The manuscript proposes two experiments to distinguish classical vs. quantum variants of the Fitzhugh-Nagumo and cable equations via power spectra and propagation statistics in neural cultures and axons. It does not derive the quantum equations from any Hamiltonian or master equation inside the paper, nor does it fit parameters to existing data and then relabel the fit as a prediction. The text explicitly frames the quantum variants as 'recently introduced' and treats future measurements as the test, with no self-referential loop, uniqueness theorem, or ansatz smuggled via citation that reduces the central claim to its own inputs. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The proposal rests on the domain assumption that quantum variants of standard neural equations are meaningful and distinguishable in experiment; no free parameters or new entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Quantum variants of the Fitzhugh-Nagumo and cable equations constitute valid alternative models for neural electrical activity.
    Invoked when the authors state that power spectra and propagation statistics can be tested against these variants.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5593 in / 1075 out tokens · 41857 ms · 2026-05-18T20:50:44.571613+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Quantum biology,

    N. Lambert, Yueh-Nan Chen, Yuan-Chung Cheng, Che-Ming Li, Guang-Yin Chen and Franco Nori, “Quantum biology,” Nature Physics 9, 10-18 (2013)

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    McFadden and J

    J. McFadden and J. Al-Khalili, Life on the Edge: The Coming of Age of Quantum Biology, Crown Publishing (2014)

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    J. R. Busemeyer and P. D. Bruza, Quantum Models of Cognition and Decision , Cam- bridge University Press (2012)

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    A. Y. Khrennikov, Ubiquitous Quantum Structure: From Psychology to Finance, Springer (2010)

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    A quantum probability explanation for violations of “rational

    E. M. Pothos and J. R. Busemeyer, “A quantum probability explanation for violations of “rational” decision theory,” Proceedings of the Royal Society B 276 (1665), 2171-2178 (2009)

    work page 2009

  6. [6]

    Quantum Structure in Cognition: Origins, Developments, Suc- cesses, and Expectations

    D. Aerts and S. Sozzo, “Quantum Structure in Cognition: Origins, Developments, Suc- cesses, and Expectations”, The Palgrave Handbook of Quantum Models in Social Sci- ence: Applications and Grand Challenges , Emmanuel Haven, Andrei Khrennikov (eds), Springer (2017)

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    A quantum probability account of order effects in inference,

    J. S. Trueblood and J. R. Busemeyer, “A quantum probability account of order effects in inference,” Cognitive Science 35(8), 1518-1552 (2011)

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    Mental states follow quantum mechanics during perception and cognition of ambiguous figures,

    E. Conte, A. Khrennikov, O. Todarello, A. Federici and J. P. Zbilut, “Mental states follow quantum mechanics during perception and cognition of ambiguous figures,” Open Systems & Information Dynamics 16(1), 85-100 (2009)

    work page 2009

  9. [9]

    Asano, M

    M. Asano, M. Ohya, Y. Tanaka, A. Khrennikov and I. Yamamoto, Quantum Adaptivity in Biology: From Genetics to Cognition , Springer (2015)

    work page 2015

  10. [10]

    Quantum cognition: a new theoretical approach to psychology,

    P. D. Bruza, Z. Wang and J. R. Busemeyer, “Quantum cognition: a new theoretical approach to psychology,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 19(7), 383-393 (2015)

    work page 2015

  11. [11]

    The FitzHugh-Nagumo equations and quantum noise,

    P. Ghose and D. A. Pinotsis, “The FitzHugh-Nagumo equations and quantum noise,” Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal 30, 15-20, (2025)

    work page 2025

  12. [12]

    Orchestrated reduction of quantum coherence in brain microtubules: A model for consciousness,

    S. Hameroff and R. Penrose, “Orchestrated reduction of quantum coherence in brain microtubules: A model for consciousness,” Mathematics and Computers in Simulation , 40(3-4), 453-480 (1996)

    work page 1996

  13. [13]

    A quantitative description of membrane current and its application to conduction and excitation in nerve,

    A. L. Hodgkin and A. F. Huxley, “A quantitative description of membrane current and its application to conduction and excitation in nerve,”J Physiol. 117 (4), 500-544 (1952)

    work page 1952

  14. [14]

    Noise in the nervous system,

    A. A. Faisal, L. P. J. Selen and D. M. Wolpert, “Noise in the nervous system,” Nature Reviews Neuroscience 9(4), 292-303 (2008). 13

    work page 2008

  15. [15]

    Models of stochastic activity in the auditory nerve: Implications for neural coding,

    I. C. Bruce, “ Models of stochastic activity in the auditory nerve: Implications for neural coding,” Hearing Research 227(1–2), 53-67 (2007)

    work page 2007

  16. [16]

    Modeling extracellular field potentials and the frequency-filtering properties of extracellular space,

    C. B´ edard, M. Kr¨ oger and A. Destexhe, “Modeling extracellular field potentials and the frequency-filtering properties of extracellular space,” Biophysical Journal 86(3), 1829- 1842 (2004)

    work page 2004

  17. [17]

    H. C. Tuckwell, Introduction to Theoretical Neurobiology, Vol. 1: ‘Linear Cable Theory and Dendritic Structure’, Cambridge University Press (1988)

    work page 1988

  18. [18]

    The what and where of adding channel noise to the Hodgkin-Huxley equations,

    J. H. Goldwyn and E. Shea-Brown, “The what and where of adding channel noise to the Hodgkin-Huxley equations,” PLoS Computational Biology 7(11), e1002247 (2011)

    work page 2011

  19. [19]

    Modeling axon membranes for functional electrical stim- ulation,

    F. Rattay and C. Wenger, “Modeling axon membranes for functional electrical stim- ulation,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering 18(2), 137-144 (2010)

    work page 2010

  20. [20]

    Stochastic resonance,

    L. Gammaitoni, P. H¨ anggi, P. Jung and F. Marchesoni, “Stochastic resonance,”Reviews of Modern Physics 70(1), 223-287 (1998)

    work page 1998

  21. [21]

    Derivation of the Schr¨ odinger Equation from Newtonian Mechanics,

    E. Nelson, “Derivation of the Schr¨ odinger Equation from Newtonian Mechanics,”Phys. Rev. 150(4), 1079-1085, (1966)

    work page 1966

  22. [22]

    A stochastic model related to the telegrapher’s equation,

    M. Kac, “A stochastic model related to the telegrapher’s equation,” Rocky Mountain J. Math. 4(3), 497-509, (1956)

    work page 1956

  23. [23]

    A class of Markov processes associated with nonlinear parabolic equa- tions,

    H. P. McKean, “A class of Markov processes associated with nonlinear parabolic equa- tions,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA , 48, 1566-1569, (1963)

    work page 1963

  24. [24]

    A stochastic interpretation of relativistic quantum me- chanics,

    F. Guerra and R. Ruggiero, “A stochastic interpretation of relativistic quantum me- chanics,” Lett. Nuovo Cimento , 32 (5), 165-172, (1981)

    work page 1981

  25. [25]

    Relativistic Extension of the Analogy between Quantum Mechanics and Brownian Motion,

    B. Gaveau, T. Jacobson, M. Kac and L. S. Schulman, “Relativistic Extension of the Analogy between Quantum Mechanics and Brownian Motion,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 53, 419, (1984)

    work page 1984

  26. [26]

    Mathematical models of excitation and propagation in nerve

    R. FitzHugh, “Mathematical models of excitation and propagation in nerve”, Biological Engineering, H. P. Schwan (ed), McGraw-Hill, New York, (1969), 1–85, Chapter1

    work page 1969

  27. [27]

    An active pulse transmission line simulating nerve axon

    J. Nagumo, S. Arimoto and S. Yoshizawa, “An active pulse transmission line simulating nerve axon”, Proceedings of the IRE 50, 2061–2070, (1962)

    work page 2061

  28. [28]

    A multichannel shot noise approach to describe synaptic background activity in neurons

    M. Rudolph and A. Destexhe, A., “A multichannel shot noise approach to describe synaptic background activity in neurons”,The European Physical Journal B – Condensed Matter and Complex Systems , 52, 125–132, (2006)

    work page 2006

  29. [29]

    Ion-channel noise places limits on the miniaturization of the brain’s wiring

    A. A. Faisal, J. A. White and S. B. Laughlin, “Ion-channel noise places limits on the miniaturization of the brain’s wiring”, Current Biology 15 (12), 1143–1149, (2005). 14

    work page 2005

  30. [30]

    The patch clamp technique

    E. Neher and B. Sakmann, “The patch clamp technique”, Scientific American, 266 (3), 44–51, (1992)

    work page 1992

  31. [31]

    Microfabricated neural thermo- couple arrays probe for brain research

    B. C. Lee, Y. G. Lim, K. H. Kim, S. Lee and S. Moon, “Microfabricated neural thermo- couple arrays probe for brain research”, TRANSDUCERS 2009 International Solid-State Sensors, Actuators and Microsystems Conference , 338–341, (2009), IEEE, June

    work page 2009

  32. [32]

    Statistical decision theory and multiscale analyses of human brain data

    D. A. Pinotsis, “Statistical decision theory and multiscale analyses of human brain data”, Journal of Neuroscience Methods , 346, 108912, (2020)

    work page 2020

  33. [33]

    Bayesian modelling of induced responses and neuronal rhythms

    D. A. Pinotsis, R. Loonis, A. M. Bastos, E. K. Miller and K. J. Friston, “Bayesian modelling of induced responses and neuronal rhythms”, Brain Topography 32 (4), 569– 582, (2019)

    work page 2019

  34. [34]

    Subthreshold mem- brane potential oscillations in neurons of deep layers of the entorhinal cortex

    D. Schmitz, T. Gloveli, J. Behr, T. Dugladze and U. Heinemann, “Subthreshold mem- brane potential oscillations in neurons of deep layers of the entorhinal cortex”, Neuro- science 85 (4), 999–1004, (1998). 15

    work page 1998