As I said I am not forgetting this arguement at all and I want to come back to it. I totally disagree with everything you have written but it can wait for now I need to fill in some detail. It is you who is now being argumentative I have said on at least 3 occasions lets sort the science and come back to this.
This IS the science. you continue to avoid it for some reason.
In 1999, Zeilinger abandoned atom optics for experiments with very complex and massive macro-molecules - fullerenes. The successful demonstration of quantum interference for and molecules (fullerenes) in 1999 opened up a very active field of research. Key results include the most precise quantitative study to date of decoherence by thermal radiation and by atomic collisions and the first quantum interference of complex biological macro-molecules. This work is continued by Markus Arndt.
And? Again, you're pointing at exceptions and claiming that they are generalities. Macro objects, under very specific conditions, can be made to exhibit quantum behaviours. But under the conditions in which life exists, theses structures no longer exhibit such behaviours. Take your own example - fullerenes. Instead of wikipedia, lets look at the actual paper:
http://www.uam.es/personal_pdi/ciencias/jcuevas/Teaching/double-slit-C60.pdfTo make this work - i.e. to force QM behaviours into the macro workd, he had to:
1) Ionize the fullerenes at 3000K
2) Fire them individually at the target, so they could not interact with eachother and destroy their QM state.
3) Use a high-power laser to forcibly maintain their coherence state, and
4) Use machinery to select only those particles with the correct velocity to exhibit QM behaviours under the conditions they created.
Life doesn't experience any of that - all biomolicules will degrade at temps far below 3000K, high-powered lasers are no where to be seen, and there are no filtration systems or single-molecule generators to prevent a loss of quantum states due to interactions with other molecules.
Or, in otherwords, you are again lying - this study does not show that massive objects exhibit quantum behaviours. It shows the opposite - that those sorts of behaviours can only be seen in macromolecules if exacting conditions - and near-zero molecular density - is maintained.
Nature paper shows the same as the last one - QM states in macromolecules are not observed, except under experimental conditions where the intermolecualr interactions that lead to a loss of QM behaviour are eliminated by the experimenter.
The bottom line here is all molecules, atoms and objects have intrinsic QM properties
I never claimed otherwise; however, the part you insist on ignoring is that in larger structures (i.e. where they can interact with other molecules) these behaviours are lost, and the system behaves as described by classical mechanics.
Got it the global coherence NEVER DIES OR STOPS that we know it is sort of like the cosmic background radiation in laymans terms and your 50 year old mystery is solved for you.
But it is not solved; as you cannot explain macro behaviours based on the measurement of quantum features. Again, taking one small part of what I said and pretending it is all I said is a form of lying.
Why is it you cannot address the issues I raise without first lying about the claims I made? I clearly stated that QM is unable to explain how QM behaviours turn into the classical processes we observe in the macro-world - and nothing you've provided states otherwise. Having a model that ma explain the phenomena is a far cry from being able to take a known QM state and then extrapolate how that then creates a macro-state such as a thermodynamic disequilibrium across a membrane.
Again I will point out QM is doing nothing it is a description of the universe and that description as far as we know holds for anything in the universe. Whatever the system QM is describing is some underlying theory and it is that which controls the rules of the universe and I am sorry all chemistry must obey those rules a fact readily accepted by most chemists.
I never claimed those rules were not obeyed. Keep in mind, you're the one claiming that QM somehow 'rewrites' biology and biological evolution. I'm the one arguing that no - it does not - as biology and biological evolution obey they classical rules of chemistry, thermodynamics, etc, and that the QM properties you ascribe as being the re-writers (i.e. QM entropy) are either unappliable at this time (as we lack a framework to directly relate those into the macro world) or are outright falsifications on your part as to what QM states..
What you are arguing is that biological polymers are now exempt from rules that as far as we know every other thing in the universe plays by based on what?
How exactly did you get that from what I wrote?
Thats fine we are in agreement on that fact because at a QM level I can expalin to you why there ultimately must break down to a subset that involves only one driving factor, we call it emergent behaviour.
So now you're stealing my argument and claiming it as you own? However, emergence at most biological levels is explained nicely without QM. Even understanding the spontanious formation of monomers and their subsequent assemblage into self-replicating polymers, requires nothing more than good-ol' Gibbs free energy calculations and basic stoichiometry.
See some answers require actually no knowledge of biology itself something that may perhaps surprise you.
Except for the part where I had to explain how the biology actually worked, so you could try and fit it into your model :shakehead:
If you are happy with all that we may be ready to discuss simple versus complex life energetics.
I've been happy to discuss it since day 1 - you're the one whose been looking for excuses not to discuss it....
Bryan
