Submited on: 29 May 2017 02:41:05 PM GMT
Published on: 05 Jun 2017 09:36:23 AM GMT
Communications, the Sleeping Brain, and Wormholes
Posted by Dr. Robert A Lodder on 26 Oct 2017 01:59:50 PM GMT Reviewed by Interested Peers

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    The main claim of the paper appears to be:

    “Our sleep may be the only one opening up channels to peek into our past or our future or our infinite co-existences in the parallel worlds, whereas our wakefulness may hide our ability to see through the matrix unless we consider being well-trained and astute in "thoughtless meditation devoid of distracting thoughts blinding our minds" which may be our awakening to at-least mind-travel across the wormholes.”

    The author asks the questions:

    “Why and how do we dream?" and

    "What worlds do our dreams represent?"

    “Do dreams during sleep mean our minds traveling back and forth across this small or large distance [in the fabric of space-time] as similar to traveling across wormhole at speed of light?”

    See Other Comments below.

  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    These claims are novel in the biomedical literature, but they are present in science fiction (films and television shows including Star Trek: The Original Series, Interstellar, and Ghost cited by the author).

  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    Yes, the claims are placed in the context of science fiction and fantasy by the author.

  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    No experimental results are reported. Possible experiments include testing for the presence of black holes and wormholes around dreamers (for example, by gravitational lensing as described by Shatskii in the Astronomy Reports paper above), and testing for communication of information between the brain of a dreamer and a black hole / wormhole.

  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    No experimental protocols are provided.  

  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    No specific testing methodologies are described. No safety information is provided in connection with any possible experimental protocols. The immense mass of black holes creates special access concerns, radiation concerns, and other safety concerns for researchers working in their vicinity. Any proposed experimental protocols should mention this clearly.  For example, Cygnus X-1 is a galactic X-ray source in the constellation Cygnus, and the first such source generally accepted as a black hole. It is one of the strongest X-ray sources visible from Earth. Radiation precautions would appear to be needed in addition to protections from the hazards of fast-moving objects In the vicinity of the black hole due to matter accretion.

  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    Because of the difficulties posed by physical experiments in the vicinity of wormholes (for example, no wormholes have been shown to exist yet, and should any be found, there would be many of the safety concerns associated with black holes in experimenting in the vicinity of the wormhole), simulations and calculations (for example, Fu, Zicao, Donald Marolf, and Eric Mefford. "Time-independent wormholes." Journal of High Energy Physics 2016.12 (2016): 21) are the only types of experiments that can be practically performed. It is not clear whether sufficient information exists on wormholes or on the communication of information across the vast distances to the nearest wormholes to enable useful simulations to be made.

  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    This paper is a bit too speculative to be incorporated in most lectures in neuroscience or theoretical physics.

  • Other Comments:

    The wormholes are Einstein-Rosen bridges through which some sort of communication is hypothesized to occur.  Einstein–Rosen bridges are hypothetical objects that topologically connect distant locations in the universe and can be static solutions of the Einstein equations. In A. A. Shatskii, “Einstein–Rosen Bridges and the Characteristic Properties of Gravitational Lensing by Them” Astronomy Reports, Vol. 48, No. 7, 2004, pp. 525–533, wormholes are described as “constructed only from matter with exotic equations of state ...  such matter has not been found in the Universe thus far.”  As a result, it is not clear how important the claims of the paper may be. Still, “bridges could be real and observable astrophysical objects, such as black holes” and thus the purpose of the Astronomy Reports paper is to describe how gravitational lensing would be exhibited by wormholes or bridges (the possible relevance of gravitational lensing is discussed above).  Of course, considerable mass is appears to be necessary to create bridges / wormholes.

  • Competing interests:
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
  • References:
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    This reviewer has a PhD in chemistry and is a professor of chemistry, pharmaceutical sciences, and electrical engineering.

  • How to cite:  Lodder R A.Communications, the Sleeping Brain, and Wormholes[Review of the article 'Wormhole of Mind ' by Gupta D].WebmedCentral 2017;8(10):WMCRW003366
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse