Re: more on `quantum evolution'

From: Brian Atkins (
Date: Wed Mar 01 2000 - 13:17:59 MST

"Robert J. Bradbury" wrote:
> 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.

Was the article incorrect when it stated that they have gotten
buckeyballs to function as waves? And it claims they are similiar
in diameter to DNA (not of course in length :-).

The article went on in another completely different direction
speculating on em fields of the brain producing consciousness.
Any comments?

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:04:24 MDT