Thought Provoker
Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007
|
Hi Creeky Belly,
You wrote...
| Quote | | Interference, like your Bucky ball experiment, has nothing to do with entanglement or computation, but rather the effect of the deBroglie wavelength on molecular structures. |
I thought we were talking about 300K decoherence.
(entanglement and quantum calculations are a separate issue, IMO)
The Bucky Balls are in superposition (i.e. coherence).
I suggest the dual-split experiment is just an easy way to test for superposition and coherence. If you get an interference pattern, you have coherence. If you don't, you had early decoherence.
You are, of course, correct in that currently we can only demonstrate long lasting coherence at cold temperatures (7 to 10 seconds).
But, frankly, the actual decoherence time comes close to being a detail that I am willing to see worked out over time. Penrose/Hameroff predict decoherence times of around 25ms.
Meanwhile, let's see how far we agree. Do you...
1. Agree/disagree that it is likely life directly uses quantum effects for photosynthesis?
2. Agree/disagree that it is likely that DNA function directly involves quantum effects?
3. Agree/disagree that it is likely the cytoskeleton is the mechanism for the appearance of single-cell awareness?
4. Agree/disagree that this awareness is likely due to the direct involvement of quantum effect in microtubules?
5. Agree/disagree that cytoskeleton awareness of neuron cells plays a part in the appearance of human consciousness?
6. Agree/disagree that synchronized microtubule decoherence is likely responsible for the 40hz (25ms) EEG frequency that corresponds to state of consciousness?
Identify your level a skepticism all you want. I just want to know where your threshold is.
|
