Quantum to Cosmos Part 3

Nine physicists discuss what lies ahead in physics, from the Quantum to the Cosmos.
Katherine Freese, Leo Kadanoff, Lawrence Krauss, Neil Turok, Sean M. Carroll, Anton Zeilinger, Gino Segrè, Andrew White, David Tong

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• quantum
• cosmos

[sbergman27]

@FashionablyLeftBlank (continued) BTW, the burden of proof is upon the people making the extraordinary claims. It's up to the quantum biology folks to supply credible evidence. To be sure, someone, somewhere, is claiming, with an air of authority, that they have evidence for pretty much anything that it's possible to make a claim for. The skeptic does not have to produce evidence that extraordinary claims are wrong. The claimants need to present convincing peer reviewed evidence in support.

[sbergman27]

@FashionablyLeftBlank For a real, working physicist's candid response to this kind of nonsense, do a YT search for "Stuart Hameroff Hammered By Questions". Perhaps you need a better understanding of Quantum Mechanics. Entanglement, e.g., can only occur in the very simplest of physical systems. Say, with two related photons. The chances of QE occurirng in a living cell is on the order of the chance of you spontaneously quantum tunneling across the galaxy. Finite, but astronomically unlikely.

[FashionablyLeftBlank]

@sbergman27 "there is not a shred of evidence directly supporting the idea"

Perhaps you need to read a bit more widely? For example, do a search on the term "entanglement photosynthesis" and have a look at the experimental and theoretical work, e.g. from Lawrence Berkeley Lab and the University of California.

Ironically, your claim of "there is not a shred of evidence" its not supported by the evidence. ;)

Love "veneer of credibility", although, in my opinion, it's more of a varnish...

[sbergman27]

06:50 Note how the other physicists stop smiling when White goes off talking about biological systems exploiting quantum entanglement. While it's true that some theorists do hypothesize this, to my knowledge there is not a shred of evidence directly supporting the idea. He's applying a veneer of credibility to a preposterous idea with zero evidence supporting it. I know that Krause, in particular, takes a very dim view of this.

[Demcoy1]

My friend they are not technicians,they thinkers.

[groundzerobuild]

Nine physicist there but none of them can solve a simple microphone problem that can be solved even by the Amazon tribe who never been to school?