21–30 of 85 posts
Each of the main points of the article has the feel that the conclusions are speculative wrt quantum mechanics -- any experts able to comment on them? Feels like an article over-selling inconclusive results.
Except, of course, all those physicists that do. http://www.hedweb.com/everett/everett.htm#believes
It's always a shame when the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is presented as how reality works. Most of the perceived weirdness of QM comes from the leaps of faith required to make the Copenhagen interpretation work.
There's a lot of truth in that, and the orthodox interpretation is indeed riddled with incoherence. But what fascinates me is that after so much effort, the quantum community seems to be further away than ever from coming to a consensus on interpreting the theory. Every proposed interpretation does away with some foundational issue, yet introduces another in the process.
That claim about DNA, mutations and quantum effects - well it makes the paper less credible. DNA and its replication and mutations are largely non-quantum and it is also not true at all that in DNA every matters; minor alterations of the do not produce invalid code.
Protein folding is a quantum thing indeed. And folding matters no less than the amino acids sequence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a lot of truth in that, and the orthodox interpretation is indeed riddled with incoherence. But what fascinates me is that after so much effort, the quantum community seems to be further away than ever from coming to a consensus on interpreting the theory. Every proposed interpretation does away with some foundational issue, yet introduces another in the process.
They may not have a consensus, but why do you think they're further away from consensus than they were in the past?
If instead you mean "by what process are they further away from consensus": I would suggest that the recent surge of research in quantum information theory has stimulated a greater interest in foundational issues, which in turn has led to an invigoration of the interpretations debate.
Crystals: Check
Using established scientific terminology mashed together in a way that sounds rigorous on the surface but is really gibberish: Check!
"The colour of your eyes, the shape of your nose, your intelligence or propensity for disease are encoded at the quantum level." Uh, nope.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They may not have a consensus, but why do you think they're further away from consensus than they were in the past?
If you mean "what has led you to think they're further away from consensus": mostly just gut feeling, as a (younger) member of that community. I've not seen any rigorous and comprehensive studies of which interpretations garner the most support, but it does seem like popularity is currently divided between the orthodox and several other interpretations that have evolved from "niche" to "significant minority" in recen…
In short Copenhagen still (sadly) rules the day, followed by many worlds and QIT.
"The colour of your eyes, the shape of your nose, your intelligence or propensity for disease are encoded at the quantum level." Uh, nope.
That quote instantly makes me lose any credibility in the author. Is he/she really that ignorant of basic biology, or am I misunderstanding something?