Re: more on `quantum evolution'

From: Robert J. Bradbury (
Date: Wed Mar 01 2000 - 11:34:31 MST

On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, M. E. Smith wrote:

> Neither can I, but I think the initial slamming of
> this idea on this list was premature. Quantum effects
> CAN be seen in things larger than elementary
> particles. The things just have to be sufficiently
> isolated from their environment that they aren't
> constantly interacting and their wave functions aren't
> constantly collapsing. Can this be said of DNA
> molecules inside cells?

I don't buy it. The more massive the particle(s) are the
more difficult it is to get them to function as waves. Photons
do it naturally, electrons do it if you confine them to a very
small space (quantum dots or < 10 atom thick FET gates).
To get atoms to do it, you have to cool them down to almost
absolute zero to get a Bose-Einstein condensate. Now I'm
sure a couple of labs are working on molecular condensates
but you can bet the molecules are pretty small. Nowhere
near the size of DNA and certainly not at at room temperature.

Wasn't Penrose's quantum theory of consciousness (memory in the
actin filaments or some similar caca) trounced in Dec. or Jan.?
[Got refs?] N.B., I haven't read the background material for
the above post and unless several someones say it is worth
looking at I don't intend to.

The only thing worse than magic physics is Bogus Magic Physics...


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:04:23 MDT