4 ms·

quite interesting, but its a bit confused... and its not exactly a revelation that processes involving molecules or particles are best explained by quantum effe

by jheriko 10y ago

quite interesting, but its a bit confused... and its not exactly a revelation that processes involving molecules or particles are best explained by quantum effects. this is precisely where quantum physics came from - trying to explain these things. "The wet, warm, bustling environment of living cells is the last place you might expect to see quantum events." stuff like this is misleading imo. its exactly the sort of place you expect to see quantum effects - because its in the universe and at the appropriate scale.

flukus 10y ago
>stuff like this is misleading imo. its exactly the sort of place you expect to see quantum effects - because its in the universe and at the appropriate scale. Isn't this a few orders of magnitude above where you'd expect to see quantum effects?
- jheriko 10y ago
  It's quite a few below for some effects. Have you heard of the double slit experiment? But actually the scale of cells and their structures is macro-molecule scale... a lot of the behaviour of those things (DNA, proteins etc..) is very quantum mechanical.. there are also structures working with ions and even protons (hydrogen ion) in there.
- pdonis 10y ago
  > Isn't this a few orders of magnitude above where you'd expect to see quantum effects? No. Chemistry itself is fundamentally dependent on quantum effects; quantum effects determine the structure of atoms and molecules, how they combine, and how much energy is involved in those processes. That's true whether the processes are taking place in living bodies or not. My reaction to this article is basically the same as jheriko's: this is news?
  - flukus 10y ago
    I thought chemistry operated at a higher level, as in it doesn't care how or why a atoms are structured they way they are, they just deal with the results at a higher level of abstraction. Is this incorrect?
    - pdonis 10y ago
      > I thought chemistry operated at a higher level "Chemistry" as you're using the term here is a name for a set of models made by humans, not something in actual atoms and molecules. The atoms and molecules don't know that they're supposed to be doing "chemistry" instead of "quantum stuff". When I say chemistry is fundamentally dependent on quantum effects, I mean the things atoms and molecules actually do would be impossible without quantum effects. The very existence of atoms depends on quantum effects; in a purely classical world atoms would be impossible. The chemical properties of atoms--their valences, for example--require quantum mechanics to explain. Often in human models of chemistry, the details of how things like valences of atoms are produced from quantum effects are left out. But that doesn't mean quantum effects aren't being seen when we observe atoms with particular valences, for example. It just means the details aren't explicitly present in those models.
      - flukus 10y ago
        Thanks, I think. I really need to brush up on my understanding of chemistry.
    - Noseshine 10y ago
      Take a course like "MITx: Introduction to Solid state Chemistry" [0] and while you won't be doing quantum physics except a very basic introduction you'll brush against it all the time. Depends on what exactly you do in chemistry. Understanding structures like molecules and chemical bonds takes you deep. I f you only care about macro effects, like how to turn this input into that output in an industrial process than you move away from the low-level basics. The same as in any field, you get to choose if you want to invent new algorithms or if you care about software architecture - both valid jobs for a CS person but it's different worlds. [0] https://www.edx.org/course/introduction-solid-state-chemistry-mitx-3-091x-4 https://www.edx.org/course/introduction-solid-state-chemistr...
- Dylan16807 10y ago
  We're not talking about entire cells having quantum fluctuations. Just single molecules within them; exactly the scale where you expect such oddities.
  - flukus 10y ago
    That makes more sense, thanks.
paul_milovanov 10y ago
PSA reading most popular science reporting considered harmful

by jheriko 10y ago

flukus 10y ago

>stuff like this is misleading imo. its exactly the sort of place you expect to see quantum effects - because its in the universe and at the appropriate scale. Isn't this a few orders of magnitude above where you'd expect to see quantum effects?

jheriko 10y ago
It's quite a few below for some effects. Have you heard of the double slit experiment? But actually the scale of cells and their structures is macro-molecule scale... a lot of the behaviour of those things (DNA, proteins etc..) is very quantum mechanical.. there are also structures working with ions and even protons (hydrogen ion) in there.
pdonis 10y ago
> Isn't this a few orders of magnitude above where you'd expect to see quantum effects? No. Chemistry itself is fundamentally dependent on quantum effects; quantum effects determine the structure of atoms and molecules, how they combine, and how much energy is involved in those processes. That's true whether the processes are taking place in living bodies or not. My reaction to this article is basically the same as jheriko's: this is news?
- flukus 10y ago
  I thought chemistry operated at a higher level, as in it doesn't care how or why a atoms are structured they way they are, they just deal with the results at a higher level of abstraction. Is this incorrect?
  - pdonis 10y ago
    > I thought chemistry operated at a higher level "Chemistry" as you're using the term here is a name for a set of models made by humans, not something in actual atoms and molecules. The atoms and molecules don't know that they're supposed to be doing "chemistry" instead of "quantum stuff". When I say chemistry is fundamentally dependent on quantum effects, I mean the things atoms and molecules actually do would be impossible without quantum effects. The very existence of atoms depends on quantum effects; in a purely classical world atoms would be impossible. The chemical properties of atoms--their valences, for example--require quantum mechanics to explain. Often in human models of chemistry, the details of how things like valences of atoms are produced from quantum effects are left out. But that doesn't mean quantum effects aren't being seen when we observe atoms with particular valences, for example. It just means the details aren't explicitly present in those models.
    - flukus 10y ago
      Thanks, I think. I really need to brush up on my understanding of chemistry.
  - Noseshine 10y ago
    Take a course like "MITx: Introduction to Solid state Chemistry" [0] and while you won't be doing quantum physics except a very basic introduction you'll brush against it all the time. Depends on what exactly you do in chemistry. Understanding structures like molecules and chemical bonds takes you deep. I f you only care about macro effects, like how to turn this input into that output in an industrial process than you move away from the low-level basics. The same as in any field, you get to choose if you want to invent new algorithms or if you care about software architecture - both valid jobs for a CS person but it's different worlds. [0] https://www.edx.org/course/introduction-solid-state-chemistry-mitx-3-091x-4 https://www.edx.org/course/introduction-solid-state-chemistr...
Dylan16807 10y ago
We're not talking about entire cells having quantum fluctuations. Just single molecules within them; exactly the scale where you expect such oddities.
- flukus 10y ago
  That makes more sense, thanks.

paul_milovanov 10y ago

PSA reading most popular science reporting considered harmful