creeky belly
Posts: 205
Joined: June 2006
|
| Quote | | To the first point, I wasn't overly worried about the fact the C60 experiment had a different kind of superposition. The double-slit superposition is much harder to accomplish than having superpositioned states of the same biomolecule in essentially the same location. Doing it is relatively easy; detecting it is the hard part. |
| Quote | | As to the "coherence across multiple molecules". I am probably more willing to accept that as a given based on my view of the inherent interconnectedness of quantum effects in space-time geometry. So, I don't have a ready answer to that one. I think we will have enough to talk about getting past the isolation question (i.e. warm, wet brain). I suggest tabling this one for later. |
The difficulty was producing uniform momentum particles, but decoherence times are much different for this quantum interaction than for say, spin states. I don't think you can just side-step this issue and say you're not worried, there's some real considerations that need to be made when you talk about exactly what is being entangled. Coherence times across molecules run the risk of quickly going into a mixed state (no interference), which is why not everything is connected in a quantum sense. I guess what I'm really trying to say is, I don't really care if you can accept that molecules don't have trouble staying in a coherent state, the evidence is on my side that they have short times at room temperature.
| Quote | | As to the error correction. Dr. Hameroff has pointed out various inherent error correction mechanisms in his view the microtubule model. He even suggests it helps with decoherence in that the other tubulins literally prevent strays from getting out of line. |
That's a great model. Where's the evidence? Is it quantum error correction that he's referring to? I suspect it's not.
|
