Quick Answers to small questions
- Thread starter peter grimes
- Start date
Atrebates
Prince
I've got a non optional module on advanced quantum mechanics to sit this year (3rd year at a brutal uni). I wanna share the misery 
.
.
Hmmm...if the chemical descriptions are as you say, maybe it is time to scrap the electro chemical model of life that we have used for so long and find a way to shift our interpretations to the "more accurate" quantum view.
I've got a non optional module on advanced quantum mechanics to sit this year (3rd year at a brutal uni). I wanna share the misery
I am glad that's behind me, but I can still feel your misery
Why, yes, the field of "Quantum Biology" overcame most of the derision and has earned itself some respect in the recent years.
However, there is no need to drop a model as long as it works for a given problem. Although we know Newtonian mechanics are inaccurate and wrong, they're still widely used, because the results are accurate enough for many problems. And unless you work with single atoms or a similar system where a full quantum mechanical description is feasible (and even then you have to ignore whatever the quarks do), simplifications are necessary, for without them you won't get anywhere.
But whenever you use a simplified model you have to be aware of those simplifications and where they cease to make sense. If you limit yourself to a (semi-)classical model, you are never going to understand any coherent processes.
GoodGame
Red, White, & Blue, baby!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 13,725
Are there any good reviews for getting into "Quantum Biology"?
I see some people are using these "quantum dot" things in in-situ labeling and to be incorporated into biotech products (like synthetic phages). Does that fit "Quantum Biology?"
I see some people are using these "quantum dot" things in in-situ labeling and to be incorporated into biotech products (like synthetic phages). Does that fit "Quantum Biology?"
Quantum physics leaps into the visible world...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124820013
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124820013
Atrebates
Prince
What are they doing with the structure in question? (link above)
We can get very large structures to show some quantum behaviour (eg superconductivity) - like magnets several metres long in the LHC. Things like entanglement we can't get bigger than a few atoms.
We can get very large structures to show some quantum behaviour (eg superconductivity) - like magnets several metres long in the LHC. Things like entanglement we can't get bigger than a few atoms.
I don't know, but probably not (yet). A few years ago, people began to search for coherent quantum effects in biological systems. At first they were laughed at, because many thought, that warm and wet systems like a cell cannot stay coherent for any measurable amount of time. Turns out that they were wrong and quatum effects do play a role in biological systems. For example, it has been found out that the very efficient electron transfer during the first step of photosynthesis is possible due to coherent quantum effects that remind of quantum search algorithms developed for quantum computing.
It's probably all quite technical, yet, and it might take some time until an accessible introduction to the field is available. (But I could be wrong and something like that might already exist. It's not really my field)
I see some people are using these "quantum dot" things in in-situ labeling and to be incorporated into biotech products (like synthetic phages). Does that fit "Quantum Biology?"[/QUOTE]
Not really. It's more the study of quantum effects in biological systems themselves than coupling quantum systems to biological systems
Yes, that one made quite the impact. As it happens, we discussed that one at work today.
Nothing much, yet. One problem of quantum computation are short decoherence times. The idea of micromechanical oscillators is, that they are (comparatively) large objects that should not react on outside influences that much as for example single atoms. So the coherence times should be quite long. If you could transfer the content of a qubit to a micromechanical oscillator it could serve as a quantum memory as it could store quantum information for a long time (Well, "long time" in quantum information is anything over a few microseconds
).But to do all that, you need control over the quantum state of the system, and this is quite a large step towards that.
Funny, that you say that, as this is exactly what they're doing there. It's still only one qubit, but a lot of atoms are involved.
Atrebates
Prince
Woah... A single quantum state THAT BIG?! With that many atoms involved? Kinda figured that was only technologically possible for bosons (although that was foolish). Impressed.
Before modern science, our senses showed us a very hard edged world of color and distinctive objects with clear separation. Science has blurred those edges a bit by showing us the internal workings of those objects and how they interact with us an between themselves. In this biochemical world objects remain, but have gained depth and dynamic action. It is a world of objects and their electro chemical interactions with other objects.
Quantum mechanics seems to be "destroying" that world. Not only are the dynamics of interaction changing, but so are the objects. If i could implant a tool that allowed me to "see" the quantum world, what would it look like? I cannot imagine that any object would be differentiated from any other. In a quantum based reality what happens to our object orientated references?
Quantum mechanics seems to be "destroying" that world. Not only are the dynamics of interaction changing, but so are the objects. If i could implant a tool that allowed me to "see" the quantum world, what would it look like? I cannot imagine that any object would be differentiated from any other. In a quantum based reality what happens to our object orientated references?
ParadigmShifter
Random Nonsense Generator
Light is quantum mechanics at work, I can see that
Quackers
The Frog
Still spamming I see.
Here's Russell's proof that 1+1 = 2. Just amend it as appropriate
shifter this is far too complicated i don't have a degree in matheramatics...
A professor is just a probability density cloud and is very hard to pin down. His diary typically claims that he's in two places at once, but when you observe one place the cloud collapses. Professors are even more special than quantum mechanics because they are invariably not in the place that you try to observe them.
Yes, I stole that joke.
GoodGame
Red, White, & Blue, baby!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 13,725
What do you mean my 'see'? There are models that describe aspects of quantum mechanics by comparing them to macroscopic things. For example, electrons are sometimes envisioned as clouds circling an atom. But such models have limits. When observed with high resolution electrons are not fuzzy, the cloud opaqueness is just a measure of the probability the electron is in a given region.
Not to mention things that are just virtually impossible to conceive, because the macroscopic analog is so different: an electron can have any real direction, speed, and distance from the nucleus (or any other point). That is, these values can have any fraction. However, the speed at which the electron orbits the nucleus, the rate of rotation, can only be a small number of values. That's the instantaneous rate of rotation, not the average.
For the more technically inclined: I'm talking about the quantities derived from linear and angular momentum. Linear momentum, which incorporates speed and direction is real. Angular momentum, which incorporates rate of rotation, is discrete. I'm describing above the intuitive qualities that we associate with these metrics.
Well there are still atoms, and atoms have a rough location.
And if there aren't 4?
Also, by analog one could prove that all odd numbers are prime, because 7 is an odd prime.
Our minds are slaves to our senses which determine how we see the world around us. With different senses our experiences would likely be quite different. some changes that alter our senses can be experienced like seeing infrared or ultra violet. Harder, are to see things like bats or dolphins using echo location. Visual imagery like an electron cloud are useful and are one way to enable us to "get a picture" of things that are beyond our senses.
The idea of the "matrix" does come to mind, but IIRC in that movie people who saw past the illusion of the world still had their sense of individuality and of being separated from the matrix. Our senses are a big part of what separates us from our surroundings; had we evolved with different senses would we, could we, have a different sense of self, or none at all?
I wonder how communal ants or bees notions of self are. If the chemicals that permeate hill and hive constitute a different sense and could we create such sensitivity in ourselves?
Our senses are not really a problem here, because we can always map something we cannot experience to something we can with the proper tools. We cannot see infrared light, but with an infrared viewer, we can. We cannot feel gravitational waves, but if our gravitational waves detectors started working we could map them to sound waves. We cannot see individual atoms with our eyes (Hmm, maybe we could if we really wanted to, I don't know how much signal the eyes need to detect anything), but with the right setup we can make images of them.
The problem with seeing quantum mechanics is more fundamental. If you could see quantum mechanics you would violate one of the foundational principles of quantum mechanics: That you destroy the state by observing it. Thus if we were able to see quantum mechanics we would invalidate it.
It's not senses that's the problem, it's our mental models. As moderate sized objects we evolved to model our world in ways that are useful to our daily lives. But the world isn't the same on the quantum scale.
We have math that predicts how it does behave, but it can be hard to map this math to physical interpretations.
My Billiard balls are 19th century ones made from gun-cotton, if they're shook too violently they can explode.
Hmm, it seem to me that the sense of smell is different to the other senses, in that it depicts what has happened, more than what is happening now (i know that there is a delay with light and sound,too, but it's not really on a human time scale). I was wondering if animals with a powerful sense of smell have different persective on their experiences compared to their surrounding, than we do, because of this?
Do the human reliance on the senses of sight,sound and touch makes us live more in the immediate moment and we use our minds to remember/work out what has happened, more than other animals who have a better sense of smell to rely on?
Similar threads
