Joined: June 2006
| Hi creeky belly,|
Thank you for your reasoned responses.
Buckminster fullerines don't behave like normal soccer balls because their quantum wavelength is proportional to their size (deBroglie's equation). That's essentially the best way for determining whether something will exhibit quantum effects. In addition, nuclear spin quantum computers have made use of a rather large molecule (like the one that figured out that 15 factors into 3 and 5), however, there's big difference between 1 molecule of a substance and 1 mol.
E = h/t came directly from deBroglie's work.
"The de Broglie relations show that the wavelength is inversely proportional to the momentum of a particle and that the frequency is directly proportional to the particle's kinetic energy." link
Momentum and kinetic energy are proportional to mass, not size.
deBroglie's equations are...
p = hk
E = hw
When you substitute 1/t for w, you get the form Penrose uses.
And if you read my clarification you'd understand what I meant by "size":
|Sorry, I should have clarified. I said proportional when I meant comparable, and by size I meant volume. Essentially a 1000 kg car (average dimensions of 2m on a side) at 10 m/s has a wavelength of about 1e-37 m, or 1e-28 nm. An proton (1e-4 nm radius) moving at the same velocity has a wavelength of about 600 nm. That's not to say you can't see quantum effects through macroscopic objects (take NMR and spin-spin times), but it's a pretty good indicator of what basic objects are prone to quantum effects.|
Another way to write deBroglie's equation is obviously:
lambda = h/p
Where lambda is the quantum wavelength. When the quantum wavelength of the object is comparable to its size (cube root of volume if you want), it will exhibit quantum characteristics.
|My point is there is no such thing as a minor inconsistency in logic. You would not be the first one to attempt to hand-wave away the inconvenient existence of "quantum weirdness". For seventy years people have been waiting for the logical explanation to present itself. Penrose quit waiting. He accepted it as reality and built a consistent model to explain it all. The final piece was consciousness.|
Are you familiar with the story behind Penrose Tilings?
It started out as a mathematical curiosity. At one time it was assumed that any effort to tile a surface (e.g. a floor) with a limited number of shapes would result in a repeating pattern. This is known as periodic tiling. However, attempts to prove that mathematically failed. One day, someone proved that aperiodic tiling was, in fact, possible. The race was on to find examples. The first example had 20426 tile shapes. To make a long story short, Penrose found a solution that used only TWO tile shapes (he did it in his spare time as “a hobby”).
This still might be considered just an interesting mathematical curiosity except for two things. Ten years later, an “impossible” crystal formation was discovered. You see it was thought that all crystals had to be made up of repeating structures (periodic). An aperiodic crystal formation was discovered, it matched Penrose Tilings.
The second interesting aspect is that Penrose claims his solution couldn’t have been found algorithmically, i.e. Turing Machine couldn’t be programmed to find the answer not matter how powerful it was.
Which does nothing to address the point that I raised, namely that there's no way to express a macroscopic object in terms of a pure quantum state (instead of a mixed state). You seem (along with Penrose) to think that we can handwave our way up from QM with electrons to QM with mols of atoms. Bulk QC with large magnets This is realistically the only way to get even partial macroscopic entanglement: Large precision magnets, low temps, and photons. From the paper: "99.99999999% of the time a generously sized room-temperature sample (10^22 spins) contains no 100-spin molecules in the ground state a1, a2 . . . an, or in any other single one of its 2^100 quantum states." IOW: large molecule + room temperature = no entanglement
Penrose admits that he might be wrong on the details of how. He isn't a biologist. But it is obvious Penrose is firmly convinced he is right about the quantum physics. The implications make others uncomfortable, but a lack of comfort doesn't hold a candle to experiment after experiment showing interconnected quantum effects are a reality.
Dr. Hameroff is convinced Penrose is right based on his experience in suppressing consciousness (anesthesia).
Again, maybe I missed it, but what was the last experimental quantum computation paper that Penrose wrote? Penrose can have all the theory he wants (gedanken out the wazoo); it's not discomfort if it doesn't describe reality, full stop. And this still doesn't explain why we can just handwave away EM interactions or temperature effects (how do you get a ground state in a 325K person?).