4 ms·

There's more than enough evidence that macroscopic biological entities use processes that depend on qm effects. See for example photosynthesis or enzymatic reac

by esarbe 4y ago

There's more than enough evidence that macroscopic biological entities use processes that depend on qm effects. See for example photosynthesis or enzymatic reactions. As I understand it, the wave collapse is wholly probabilistic and there's no "hidden data" (hidden variable[0]) that we could now to predict the outcome. At least not if we want keep expecting locality. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden-variable_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden-variable_theory

feet 4y ago
The level that I understand photosynthesis and enzymatic reactions is that of electron transfer, but I'm not sure how the probabilistic nature of wave collapse impacts that. I would also think its reasonable to assume that we just don't understand wave function collapse in order to be able to predict it. But again, my understanding is at a slightly larger scale
- tuckerman 4y ago
  While quantum indeterminacy is fairly offensive to most of our experience, and creating a theory which doesn’t have it is definitely possible, the result is a theory with some equally (or perhaps more so) offensive ramifications. Assuming you accomplish this with hidden variables, this theory would by necessity have to have global hidden variables and instantaneous information transfer. I don’t know if this actually impacts this broader discussion, and of course we can always discover new science, but there is a reason quantum indeterminacy is so widely accepted despite the near universal distaste for its existence.
- esarbe 4y ago
  Here some more examples of qm effects in biological systems. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5454345/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5454345/ Wave collapse is only one possible interpretation of qm. And the Copenhagen interpretation - that proposes wave collapse - is not a complete theory. So yes; we just don't understand it.
sokoloff 4y ago
I wonder in what areas of science are we living/will we be viewed by future humans in a similar light as we view adherents of the “4 Elements” theory big nature are viewed today. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_element https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_element Quantum theory is only around 100 years old. Maybe we’ve got everything right, but I suspect we’re not the first people to have that thought and therefore we’re probably due for significant learning about the universe in the next 100 years.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by esarbe 4y ago

feet 4y ago

The level that I understand photosynthesis and enzymatic reactions is that of electron transfer, but I'm not sure how the probabilistic nature of wave collapse impacts that. I would also think its reasonable to assume that we just don't understand wave function collapse in order to be able to predict it. But again, my understanding is at a slightly larger scale

tuckerman 4y ago
While quantum indeterminacy is fairly offensive to most of our experience, and creating a theory which doesn’t have it is definitely possible, the result is a theory with some equally (or perhaps more so) offensive ramifications. Assuming you accomplish this with hidden variables, this theory would by necessity have to have global hidden variables and instantaneous information transfer. I don’t know if this actually impacts this broader discussion, and of course we can always discover new science, but there is a reason quantum indeterminacy is so widely accepted despite the near universal distaste for its existence.
esarbe 4y ago
Here some more examples of qm effects in biological systems. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5454345/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5454345/ Wave collapse is only one possible interpretation of qm. And the Copenhagen interpretation - that proposes wave collapse - is not a complete theory. So yes; we just don't understand it.

sokoloff 4y ago

I wonder in what areas of science are we living/will we be viewed by future humans in a similar light as we view adherents of the “4 Elements” theory big nature are viewed today. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_element https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_element Quantum theory is only around 100 years old. Maybe we’ve got everything right, but I suspect we’re not the first people to have that thought and therefore we’re probably due for significant learning about the universe in the next 100 years.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]