Well vorticians & assorted nootropes - imagine this for a near-future breakthrough: "gene doping" with quantum coherence proteins hybridized by Penrose...
... adds another layer of suspicion that Gilroy got it right in a recent film, possibly without knowing how prescient he was ... http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg70751.html ... wouldn't want to waste an opportunity to pun ya with "Bourne again".... -----Original Message----- From: Nigel Dyer Fifteen years ago I visited someone at Daresbury in the UK to talk about coherent vibrations in living organisms. One of the things that he was working on was the light harvesting complexes in bacteria, and he said at the time that he felt that that was where we were most likely to find quantum coherence in biological systems. Looks like he was right. Nigel On 11/01/2013 19:10, [email protected] wrote: > A recent posting on 'http://physicsworld.com' revisits a topic > - quantum coherence in "messy", warm, environmentally coupled systems - > which until several years ago was dismissed as very impossible > --- until "decoherence-protected subspaces" were discovered. > > See: "Proteins boost quantum coherence in bacteria" > http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2013/jan/11/proteins-boost-quantum- coherence-in-bacteria > > EXCERPT: > [[Until recently, living systems were thought to be "too wet and warm" > to rely on delicate quantum properties such as entanglement and coherence. > The problem is that these properties decay rapidly via random interactions > with things in the outside world, such as vibrating molecules. However, > over the past decade physicists have begun to suspect that quantum > properties play important roles in biochemical processes - including > photosynthesis.]] > > Nearly twenty years ago, I had a quasi-friendly disagreement with a well > known physicist on a local talk radio show who resolutely maintained that > quantum coherence could not possibly play any role in the brain (while > he was belittling Roger Penrose's writings), or any biological system > - and that it was nonsensical "new age" pseudo-science. > > The enforcers of science orthodoxy can occasionally be very wrong. > > -- Lou Pagnucco > > >
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
