For those interested in how quantum coherence/entanglement may be generated in very hot, noisy, systems which are not at all environmentally isolated, here is another recent reference -
"Persistent dynamic entanglement from classical motion: How bio-molecular machines can generate non-trivial quantum states" http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.2126 [[Excerpt: Crucially, entanglement can be maintained even in the presence of very intense noise, so intense that no entanglement is possible when the forced oscillations cease. This mechanism may allow for the presence of non-trivial quantum entanglement in biological systems. Here we significantly enlarge the study of this model.]] Also, a recent posting I made to Vortex (which I cannot now find) shows that spin coherence (correlated with atomic type) can be maintained in macroscopic systems to over 700 degrees-C. Perhaps, these counter-intuitive examples of local/nonlocal quantum coherence are relevant to LENR? >pagnucco Fri, 11 Jan 2013 11:10:54 -0800 > >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
