Good to see a thread for rambling in, is there a podium? :))
Exciting to see that quantum coherence may exist in the relatively high-temperature environment of photosynthetic processes. I realize they were testing only a single molecule at a temperature of 77 K, which would be the mesoscopic scale (IINM), but the point was to determine how plants can be nearly 100% efficient in conversion of energy from radiation to stored chemical energy. It makes sense that such a phenomena would be difficult to measure, as the measurement itself can easily disrupt the system, but the plant's photosynthetic efficiency rating doesn't decrease when it's being bombarded by radiation from the sun, so it also makes sense that quantum coherence on a macroscopic scale is the reason.
Now, if quantum coherence extends beyond the individual atoms in a complex light-harvesting protein molecule, then surely it extends to the whole collection of such protein molecules in a single leaf, and so why would it not extend to the stem or stalk and the whole plant? The plant itself is a quantum mechanical system, right? But the plant isn't alone: a huge number of incident photons in the sunlight are necessarily part of the system, and the trail of these photons leads continuously on a 93 million-mile-long path right straight back to the sun. So do the sun and plant constitute a quantum mechanical system?
I can think of an experiment that may be possible, practical and helpful:
The materials include:
1) All the equipment that was used to observe quantum coherence in the protein molecule,
2) A radioactive substance similar to what would be used with Schroedinger's cat,
3) A detector for detecting the radioactive decay, and
4) Control circuitry between the detector and the light source used for the protein molecule (3 of the 4 lasers, not the 4th probe laser).
The radioactive substance, detector, and light source are placed together in a box (to shield the detector from any other sources of radiation). When the detector detects that the substance has undergone decay, it simply turns off the light source.
The box is placed some distance away from the protein molecule, preferably around 186,000 miles away, or a distance of 1 light-second (perhaps using a couple mirrors with the light bouncing back and forth many times to get the desired distance).
When the light source is powered up and quantum coherence is observed in the protein molecule, then the detector is turned on. Are there any changes in the observed coherence? If so, note them.
Everything should, at that point, be one single quantum mechanical system, while observation of the coherence is in progress. If that is truly the case, then it might be possible to know exactly the moment when the substance undergoes decay, by observing a subtle change in the coherence of the protein molecule (e.g., a missing, displaced, or altered peak in the beat frequency), since the system has changed (the wave function for it collapsed?), although the light will continue to shine on the protein molecule for 1 more second after the light source has been turned off by the detector.
A positive result would of course mean that information could be transmitted faster than light. Fat chance on that. But if quantum calculations take no time to perform, then there's good reason to be optimistic.
Right, I'm going to go contemplate my navel for a while now... :)
Good to see a thread for rambling in, is there a podium? :))
Exciting to see that quantum coherence may exist in the relatively....
Holy Mackerel! I think I understand. Yesterday I read an article in Scientific Americian June 1997 Titled: 'Bringing Schrodingers Cat to Life' which sort laid the ground work. Interesting Experiment. I think if it was positive outcome it would show quantum coherence or well defined superposition in a macroscopic system. Am I on the right track.
There are some who can live without wild things and some who cannot. - Aldo Leopold
Good to see a thread for rambling in, is there a podium? :))
Exciting to see that quantum coherence may exist in the relatively....
Holy Mackerel! I think I understand. Yesterday I read an article in Scientific Americian June 1997 Titled: 'Bringing Schrodingers Cat to Life' which sort laid the ground work. Interesting Experiment. I think if it was positive outcome it would show quantum coherence or well defined superposition in a macroscopic system. Am I on the right track.
I dunno, Rod, every time I think I've gained some understanding about quantum mechanics, I sort of take that as a warning sign that I'm not being counter-intuitive enough :)
Lets's see: 2007-1997=(whew, just enough fingers!) 10 years!! What were the results?? (I started a subscription to SciAm digital in '05, let me go to the archives and check on what the experiment was...)
Good to see a thread for rambling in, is there a podium? :))
Exciting to see that quantum coherence may exist in the relatively....
Holy Mackerel! I think I understand. Yesterday I read an article in Scientific Americian June 1997 Titled: 'Bringing Schrodingers Cat to Life' which sort laid the ground work. Interesting Experiment. I think if it was positive outcome it would show quantum coherence or well defined superposition in a macroscopic system. Am I on the right track.
I dunno, Rod, every time I think I've gained some understanding about quantum mechanics, I sort of take that as a warning sign that I'm not being counter-intuitive enough :)
Lets's see: 2007-1997=(whew, just enough fingers!) 10 years!! What were the results?? (I started a subscription to SciAm digital in '05, let me go to the archives and check on what the experiment was...)
Sorry Chipper .. I should have been more clearer :). I was refering to your experiment that was interesting and a positive result would indicate coherence on a macroscopic scale....
There are some who can live without wild things and some who cannot. - Aldo Leopold
Sorry Chipper .. I should have been more clearer :). I was refering to your experiment that was interesting and a positive result would indicate coherence on a macroscopic scale....
Oh, well thanks then! But the coherence on a macroscopic scale has indeed already been observed (in the examples you mentioned). The cool part about the macroscopicity is that there is some kind of instantaneous way-faster-than-light connection between different points in spacetime. According to General Relativity, this is not allowed. Or is it? I think that Special Relativity demands that it be so. Please allow me to, as Led Zepplin so aptly sung, uh-ramble on:
If the whole universe started from a single event (the big bang), then everything is, on some fundamental level or in some singular dimension, quantum mechanically entangled. The infinitude of the cosmos is a quantum mechanical system. Everything that is, was, and shall be, was resolved the instant it all came into being, stretched out to fill some number of dimensions including spacetime. I don't understand why observed incoherence isn't treated as some kind of stochastic foreground in a system that is inevitably coherent on some scale in the background, due to the nature of the instantaneously resolving outcome from whatever the probabilities happen to be.
Perhaps it's unscientific to say so, but what's good for the atoms and molecules, must surely be good for the goose and the gander, of which both are composed. So, how is it that Special Relativity demands that there be faster-than-light connections between different points in spacetime? Because of invariance, and because of what the math says when v = c. For observers anywhere/when in spacetime, the distance for a photon to go from A to B is what it's measured to be, but for the photon's frame the calculated distance goes to zero, the time it takes while getting there goes to none at all.
It's said that the only three things that happen in quantum electrodynamics are
1) an electron goes from A to B,
2) a photon goes from A to B, and
3) an electron emits or absorbs a photon,
but I have trouble with #2 from a relativistic standpoint and think the result is that the only thing experienced by the photon is an instantaneous emission coupled with an instantaneous absorption, and not the foreshortened infinite number of points B along the way. It's the reason why elements of reality separated by finite intervals of spacetime can become observably coherent on a macroscopic scale, where the instantaneous nature of the coherence appears to occur faster than light. The quantum mechanical resolution of it all is a faster-than-light complex-number-framework, and is necessarily symmetric with the experienced reality, around the the frame of reference with v = c. Trying to find a preferred frame in spacetime with v < c is as meaningless as finding an interval of spacetime greater than zero with v = c.
If I were to attempt making a rudimentary analogy, the exact value of π (3.14...) exists instantaneously in its entirety in an abstract sense, but the decimal expression of it in reality would take forever to do, and require an infinite amount of space in which to do it.
- - -
Apologies to DB— I forgot this is the thread with the podium, hope I haven't given you the urge to wizz on my soapbox from all the rambling, besides you know what the Observatory's Director would say, and the swarm of bees answer was excellent. :)))
- - -
And if my rambling might incite an 'angry mob of theorists', please feel free to fire away and point out the obvious things I've overlooked or physics I've misapplied. :)
- - -
edit: as I read this post back, it reads like "Which one's Led?"
If the whole universe started from a single event....
Your theory seems reasonable to me as a layman that every particle is entangled with every other particle in the universe and not in the mystic sense. I suspect our senses are detecting a boundary between the the quantum system and a classical system. Probably because as systems become more complex they leak information to the rest of environment.
I have a feeling that we are not evolved far enough or have the tools to measure this. ( I will get to tools part later). We as species can visualize three dimensions and measure time. Why are there only four. I suspect the solution to quantum mechanical world will lie in Cosmology.
Now tools. Evolution takes such a long time :). I think the next tool to develop would be artificial intellegence. This is how we could jump start the evolution of our mind. Tullio suggested two books from an earlier post from Penrose. I ordered them but from reading abstracts I am going to have problems with them. If I understand correctly Penrose indicates that artificial intelligence can't be realized. Maybe my senses are deceiving me :-) but everything I have experienced so far is "If you build a system with the same organization it will supply the same information". (Sorry after typing that I am not to sure any more):-)Like the article stated (Bring Schrodinger's Cat Alive) Lets continue to tinker in the Quantum world
Look I don't want this thread hijacked :-)
edit: Jump start the mind... Yikes! It might make us redundant to a strong Gaia
There are some who can live without wild things and some who cannot. - Aldo Leopold
Heavenly days no! Great Nodens! But is there anything off-topic in the Æ-Theory Bistro? :)
In support of the remarks "If you build a system with the same organization it will supply the same information", without having read the books Tullio mentioned, I'd venture to say it can be applied thusly: mathematics is the organization of the system that's the cosmos, which supplies the information of nature...
Good to see a thread for
)
Good to see a thread for rambling in, is there a podium? :))
Exciting to see that quantum coherence may exist in the relatively high-temperature environment of photosynthetic processes. I realize they were testing only a single molecule at a temperature of 77 K, which would be the mesoscopic scale (IINM), but the point was to determine how plants can be nearly 100% efficient in conversion of energy from radiation to stored chemical energy. It makes sense that such a phenomena would be difficult to measure, as the measurement itself can easily disrupt the system, but the plant's photosynthetic efficiency rating doesn't decrease when it's being bombarded by radiation from the sun, so it also makes sense that quantum coherence on a macroscopic scale is the reason.
Now, if quantum coherence extends beyond the individual atoms in a complex light-harvesting protein molecule, then surely it extends to the whole collection of such protein molecules in a single leaf, and so why would it not extend to the stem or stalk and the whole plant? The plant itself is a quantum mechanical system, right? But the plant isn't alone: a huge number of incident photons in the sunlight are necessarily part of the system, and the trail of these photons leads continuously on a 93 million-mile-long path right straight back to the sun. So do the sun and plant constitute a quantum mechanical system?
I can think of an experiment that may be possible, practical and helpful:
The materials include:
1) All the equipment that was used to observe quantum coherence in the protein molecule,
2) A radioactive substance similar to what would be used with Schroedinger's cat,
3) A detector for detecting the radioactive decay, and
4) Control circuitry between the detector and the light source used for the protein molecule (3 of the 4 lasers, not the 4th probe laser).
The radioactive substance, detector, and light source are placed together in a box (to shield the detector from any other sources of radiation). When the detector detects that the substance has undergone decay, it simply turns off the light source.
The box is placed some distance away from the protein molecule, preferably around 186,000 miles away, or a distance of 1 light-second (perhaps using a couple mirrors with the light bouncing back and forth many times to get the desired distance).
When the light source is powered up and quantum coherence is observed in the protein molecule, then the detector is turned on. Are there any changes in the observed coherence? If so, note them.
Everything should, at that point, be one single quantum mechanical system, while observation of the coherence is in progress. If that is truly the case, then it might be possible to know exactly the moment when the substance undergoes decay, by observing a subtle change in the coherence of the protein molecule (e.g., a missing, displaced, or altered peak in the beat frequency), since the system has changed (the wave function for it collapsed?), although the light will continue to shine on the protein molecule for 1 more second after the light source has been turned off by the detector.
A positive result would of course mean that information could be transmitted faster than light. Fat chance on that. But if quantum calculations take no time to perform, then there's good reason to be optimistic.
Right, I'm going to go contemplate my navel for a while now... :)
RE: Good to see a thread
)
Holy Mackerel! I think I understand. Yesterday I read an article in Scientific Americian June 1997 Titled: 'Bringing Schrodingers Cat to Life' which sort laid the ground work. Interesting Experiment. I think if it was positive outcome it would show quantum coherence or well defined superposition in a macroscopic system. Am I on the right track.
There are some who can live without wild things and some who cannot. - Aldo Leopold
RE: RE: Good to see a
)
I dunno, Rod, every time I think I've gained some understanding about quantum mechanics, I sort of take that as a warning sign that I'm not being counter-intuitive enough :)
Lets's see: 2007-1997=(whew, just enough fingers!) 10 years!! What were the results?? (I started a subscription to SciAm digital in '05, let me go to the archives and check on what the experiment was...)
RE: RE: RE: Good to see
)
Sorry Chipper .. I should have been more clearer :). I was refering to your experiment that was interesting and a positive result would indicate coherence on a macroscopic scale....
There are some who can live without wild things and some who cannot. - Aldo Leopold
RE: Sorry Chipper .. I
)
Oh, well thanks then! But the coherence on a macroscopic scale has indeed already been observed (in the examples you mentioned). The cool part about the macroscopicity is that there is some kind of instantaneous way-faster-than-light connection between different points in spacetime. According to General Relativity, this is not allowed. Or is it? I think that Special Relativity demands that it be so. Please allow me to, as Led Zepplin so aptly sung, uh-ramble on:
If the whole universe started from a single event (the big bang), then everything is, on some fundamental level or in some singular dimension, quantum mechanically entangled. The infinitude of the cosmos is a quantum mechanical system. Everything that is, was, and shall be, was resolved the instant it all came into being, stretched out to fill some number of dimensions including spacetime. I don't understand why observed incoherence isn't treated as some kind of stochastic foreground in a system that is inevitably coherent on some scale in the background, due to the nature of the instantaneously resolving outcome from whatever the probabilities happen to be.
Perhaps it's unscientific to say so, but what's good for the atoms and molecules, must surely be good for the goose and the gander, of which both are composed. So, how is it that Special Relativity demands that there be faster-than-light connections between different points in spacetime? Because of invariance, and because of what the math says when v = c. For observers anywhere/when in spacetime, the distance for a photon to go from A to B is what it's measured to be, but for the photon's frame the calculated distance goes to zero, the time it takes while getting there goes to none at all.
It's said that the only three things that happen in quantum electrodynamics are
1) an electron goes from A to B,
2) a photon goes from A to B, and
3) an electron emits or absorbs a photon,
but I have trouble with #2 from a relativistic standpoint and think the result is that the only thing experienced by the photon is an instantaneous emission coupled with an instantaneous absorption, and not the foreshortened infinite number of points B along the way. It's the reason why elements of reality separated by finite intervals of spacetime can become observably coherent on a macroscopic scale, where the instantaneous nature of the coherence appears to occur faster than light. The quantum mechanical resolution of it all is a faster-than-light complex-number-framework, and is necessarily symmetric with the experienced reality, around the the frame of reference with v = c. Trying to find a preferred frame in spacetime with v < c is as meaningless as finding an interval of spacetime greater than zero with v = c.
If I were to attempt making a rudimentary analogy, the exact value of π (3.14...) exists instantaneously in its entirety in an abstract sense, but the decimal expression of it in reality would take forever to do, and require an infinite amount of space in which to do it.
- - -
Apologies to DB— I forgot this is the thread with the podium, hope I haven't given you the urge to wizz on my soapbox from all the rambling, besides you know what the Observatory's Director would say, and the swarm of bees answer was excellent. :)))
- - -
And if my rambling might incite an 'angry mob of theorists', please feel free to fire away and point out the obvious things I've overlooked or physics I've misapplied. :)
- - -
edit: as I read this post back, it reads like "Which one's Led?"
RE: If the whole universe
)
Your theory seems reasonable to me as a layman that every particle is entangled with every other particle in the universe and not in the mystic sense. I suspect our senses are detecting a boundary between the the quantum system and a classical system. Probably because as systems become more complex they leak information to the rest of environment.
I have a feeling that we are not evolved far enough or have the tools to measure this. ( I will get to tools part later). We as species can visualize three dimensions and measure time. Why are there only four. I suspect the solution to quantum mechanical world will lie in Cosmology.
Now tools. Evolution takes such a long time :). I think the next tool to develop would be artificial intellegence. This is how we could jump start the evolution of our mind. Tullio suggested two books from an earlier post from Penrose. I ordered them but from reading abstracts I am going to have problems with them. If I understand correctly Penrose indicates that artificial intelligence can't be realized. Maybe my senses are deceiving me :-) but everything I have experienced so far is "If you build a system with the same organization it will supply the same information". (Sorry after typing that I am not to sure any more):-)Like the article stated (Bring Schrodinger's Cat Alive) Lets continue to tinker in the Quantum world
Look I don't want this thread hijacked :-)
edit: Jump start the mind... Yikes! It might make us redundant to a strong Gaia
There are some who can live without wild things and some who cannot. - Aldo Leopold
RE: Look I don't want this
)
Heavenly days no! Great Nodens! But is there anything off-topic in the Æ-Theory Bistro? :)
In support of the remarks "If you build a system with the same organization it will supply the same information", without having read the books Tullio mentioned, I'd venture to say it can be applied thusly: mathematics is the organization of the system that's the cosmos, which supplies the information of nature...
I just came in here for a
)
I just came in here for a Diet Coke...Anybody else drinking heavily tonight?
RE: I just came in here for
)
Greetings Dan:
It looks like the Ducks and the Sens...
There are some who can live without wild things and some who cannot. - Aldo Leopold
RE: RE: I just came in
)
The month of June beckons...Now finally so does the Stanley Cup.