• Neuroscience & Pharmacology Discussion Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Recent Journal Articles Chemistry Mega-Thread
    FREE Chemistry Databases! Self-Education Guide

  • N&PD Moderators: Skorpio

Electron resonance energy donation from ligand to receptor key to potency/efficacy?

Nagelfar

Nagelfar

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
2,527
Location
Vancouver, Washington USA
I was watching an interesting lecture on the molecular biology of the brain by quantum theorist & anestheisa specialist Stuart Hameroff in which he claimed the following:

That the ability of all psychoactive drugs (his examples were psychedelics with non-polar indole-like ring structure) to produce a more profound effect corresponded to how well that molecule was able to donate its own quantum electron resonance energy from itself to its correlating receptor in the brain.

Now, if this is the case, is there a way to gauge a molecule's possible power to elicit action potentials through a methodology of some rational scale for how much 'electron resonance' it has the ability to donate in its specific case from its own QSAR? Is there a way to objectively increase or decrease this without altering conformation (much)? Would electro-negativity play a role?

In this same lecture he also spoke of the therapeutic potential of transcranial ultrasound, which he seemed to insinuate he believed had to do with dendrite & axon resonance.
 
Hameroff & Penrose's theories of the brain are considered 'fringe science' by almost all mainstream researchers. For example they claim that quantum gravity effects (which are significant at the Planck length scale 1.6 x 10-35 m) have observable consequences in the biophysics of neurons (which are about 1030 times larger than the Planck length), which is absurd.

I don't think these people even define exactly what they mean by 'resonance energy'. Some drugs, like alcohol and most general anesthetics don't even have multiple chemical resonance structures. Hameroff's use of terminology sounds a bit like the vague use of 'quantum' terms in New Age mysticism bullshit.
 


He defends these attacks very succinctly herein. He is a professional anesthesiologist by trade, and certainly not an individual I'd lump in with the pejorative use for "New Age mysticism"

He also mentions his idea of the blocking effects of anesthetic gases on the brain.
 
Not going to watch a 45 minute lecture video right now, but the theory of "electron resonance" is incompatible with what we know about G-protein receptors. As polymath pointed out this is quite "fringe" science.


What the hell is "electron resonance energy" anyway? Is the lock-and-key model not good enough?
 
Well Dr. Terry P. Kenakin's ligand binding models are pretty interesting if you want to look at crazy thermodynamic models. QSAR is pretty much the future of SAR period though, but shit gets weird fast...
 
"Quantum electron resonance energy" is not a phrase that you will find in a chemistry or physics textbook or in their literature. If he is using the term resonance to refer to conjugated systems i.e. "resonance structures" then he is delving even further into pseudoscientific misuse of terms and concepts. Used in this context, resonance is simply a conceptual tool that we use to draw systems of bonds that are more complex than traditional single, double, and triple bonds. It does contribute to the ability of a molecule to donate or accept electrons, but it doesn't look like this is what he was referring to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top