Talk:Quantum woo

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon quantumwoo.svg

This Quantum woo related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement.

This article is of HIGH importance to the wiki.

See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


"Quantum woo" seems to this same phenomenon and a more well known derivation for it. I propose moving this to that title. Thoughts? tmtoulouse 16:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It be more in keeping with the format of the other woo articles that way. Scarlet A.pngpostate 16:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Aww... fun article with matching name (once you remove the word "sham" it won't be as fun anymore). Oh well, perhaps it's a lame joke to begin with. If you guys move the page perhaps you guys should rewrite/delete the fun space article. ThiehWho is Terry Koeckritz anyways? 17:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with proposed move, old title worked in its day, new title fits what we tend to do in these modern times. What does it have to do with fun article? Template allows parameters, I think... ħumanUser talk:Human 02:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The fun article was pretty much depending on the equivocation of the word "sham", so it may be less fun if the main article does not use that word. but that's just me, I have no idea how much less fun it would be (it perhaps is a really lame joke to begin with). K61824ZOYG I edit like Kenservative! 03:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Good point. Was it about pillows? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Pillow covers. ThiehZOYG I edit like Kenservative! 05:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Shams. Yes. The joke depends on the mainspace title. Let us not change it. "Quantum woo" should be a redirect to here. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm probably over thinking this[edit]

If humans typically live about 70 years, wouldn't they have a half-life of about 20 or 30 years? --Paradox (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Stupidity has special robustness and durability - David Gerard (talk) 19:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Quantum consciousness?[edit]

Seems to be a longstanding dispute on Wikipedia regarding microtubules' putative role in consciousness. Anybody able to help out over there? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 03:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Wave / Particle Duality[edit]

This part of the entry is incorrect. The equation E=ħw can be used to derive the angular frequency for all quantum objects. In other words, everything is 100% a wave. But as the frequency is determined by Planck's constant, we can often treat them as particles. Of course this itself is a simplification and there are other concerns. For example, the wavelength becomes so infinitesimal in any non-quantum mass that it's much smaller than the object's own dimensions. It's unclear what happens to the wavelength at this point, but the "duality" issue has been solved definitively. We treat things as particles for the same reasons we still use Newton's Laws... they're good enough for most applications. (talk) 06:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

De Broglie's relationship holds for independent objects in that sense, suggesting everything is a wave, but it doesn't quite explain the apparent "quantum collapse" observed up observation of a superpositional state, nor for things such as the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment. Even in the standard double-slit experiment particles are detected as if they were particles, but their distribution implies a wave-like nature during transit through the split. That all particles have an associated frequency as determined λ = h/mv has no impact upon this observation. More broadly, it does it explain why interactions between photons and matter are particle-like. For example, consider that the wavelength of a visible photon is on the order of 500 nm but atoms and molecules (which absorb them instantly as if they were point-mass particles) are 1000 times smaller. Scarlet A.pngmoralModerator 13:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


Hameroff has defended the model against its critics:

Google Workshop on Quantum Biology Clarifying the tubulin bit/qubit - Defending the Penrose-Hameroff Orch OR Model of Quantum Computation in Microtubules Presented by Stuart Hameroff October 22, 2010


The Penrose-Hameroff theory of orchestrated objective reduction (Orch OR) postulates quantum computation in microtubules inside brain neurons underlying consciousness. Specifically, Orch OR proposes that tubulin proteins comprising microtubule cylindrical lattices function as 'bits' -- switching between alternative states (e.g. of 1 or 0), as well as quantum bits or 'qubits' (existing transiently as quantum superposition of both 1 AND 0). Despite increasing evidence for functional quantum effects in warm biological systems, Orch OR has been recently criticized, e.g. in Phys Rev E by McKemmish et al (2009), who claim the nature and energetic requirements for switching of tubulin bits and qubits in microtubules make Orch OR biologically unfeasible and unsalvageable irrespective of any conceivable modification. Here we show that McKemmish et al misrepresent tubulin bit switching as proposed in Orch OR, and merely disprove their own misrepresentation. Specifically we address their allegations regarding regulation of tubulin switching by 1) van der Waals London forces, 2) GTP hydrolysis and 3) Fröhlich coherence, and show how they are wrong on all counts. We clarify certain aspects of tubulin with regard to potential bit/qubit function, and describe topological tubulin qubits specific to microtubule geometry with particular reference to helical ballistic conductance discovered by Bandyopadhyay. Orch OR remains viable and testable.

Also - the work of David Bohm and Basil Hiley offer a radically different interpretation from what is suggested in this article - building on the fact of nonlocality in physics - that matter unfolds holographically from an underlying implicate order. This interpretation is put forth in "Wholeness and the Implicate Order" and "Undivided Universe".

A combination of Bohm and the ORCH-OR model allows for telepathy, Jungian synchronicities, and the like. It essentially implies spiritual monism:

We also have the following:

"Alain Aspect is the physicist who performed the key experiment that established that if you want a real universe, it must be non-local (Einstein’s “spooky action at a distance”). Aspect comments on new work by his successor in conducting such experiments, Anton Zeilinger and his colleagues, who have now performed an experiment that suggests that “giving up the concept of locality is not sufficient to be consistent with quantum experiments, unless certain intuitive features of realism are abandoned.”

Be clear what is going on here. Quantum mechanics itself is not crying out for such experiments! Quantum mechanics is doing just fine, thank you, having performed flawlessly since inception. No, it is people whose cherished philosophical beliefs are being threatened that cry out for such experiments, exactly as Einstein used to do, and with exactly the same hope (we think in vain): that quantum mechanics can be refined to the point where it requires (or at least allows) belief in the independent reality of the natural world it describes.

Quantum mechanics makes no mention of reality (Figure 1). Indeed, quantum mechanics proclaims, “We have no need of that hypothesis.” Now we are beginning to see that quantum mechanics might actually exclude any possibility of mind-independent reality⎯and already does exclude any reality that resembles our usual concept of such (Aspect: “it implies renouncing the kind of realism I would have liked”). Non-local causality is a concept that had never played any role in physics, other than in rejection (“action-at-a-distance”), until Aspect showed in 1981 that the alternative would be the abandonment of the cherished belief in mind-independent reality; suddenly, spooky-action-at-a-distance became the lesser of two evils, in the minds of the materialists.

Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the illusion of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism.

                   RICHARD CONN HENRY
                   STEPHEN R. PALMQUIST

Quantum Medicine[edit]

Just cruising the Internets... doop, doop, oh, what's this? "Imagine you are 20 years old and your doctor tells you that you have a “terminal” illness with one-year left to live. That’s what happened to Dr. Paul Yanick, AAQM President and founder 45 years ago. Today, as the national director of national board-certification for doctors and practitioners in Quantum Medicine, he is announcing FREE monthly webinars to members on a wide range of health topics. The AAQM is funded primarily by tax deductible, charitable contributions and accepts gifts in a variety of ways that most befit the donor." "Dr" Yanick, conveniently, has his own supplement business where he thoughtfully reminds you that "97.5% of Dietary Supplements currently sold are toxic, moldy, heat damaged and ineffective at restoring inner physician health and fail to nourish the human microbiome" so of course, you're MUCH better off buying your supplements from him! Imagine that. --Pere Ubu (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Schrödinger's equation[edit]

I've linked up Mr Cat's equation - or at least I think I have. If I've messed up (and there's an excellent chance I have), please fix. Thanks :) Scherben (talk) 21:23, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I figured the Wikipedia article would be the best bet for the moment - David Gerard (talk) 21:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Smashin' :) Scherben (talk) 23:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
A truly encyclopedic entry, it is. Nerd (talk) 00:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)