Quantum properties of living organisms

Welcome to the weird and wonderful world of living systems. The scientists are discovering more and more proofs that living organisms poses properties that are not found in inorganic matter. These properties cannot be explained by classical laws of physics, and cannot be replicated using any artificially created equipment. However, these properties can be observed in living organisms, can be measured, repeated and verified in laboratories.
What gives these “supernatural” properties to living organisms and organically produced matter no one knows. For those who draw their understanding of the world from what they had learned at school, you better start reading again. Our view of the world and life is changing beyond recognition as we speak.

Here is the first example of what I am talking about.

How is this possible? What kind of undetectable force and energy is at work within living systems which can do what most powerful accelerator systems which draw energy from nuclear power plants can’t? Is this chi? Who knows? Who cares. It is just a name. But something is there for sure.

http://www.newscientist.com/mobile/...quantum-states-last-longer-in-birds-eyes.html

So here we have a quantum powered energy source within living organisms. One of the claims made by chi kung literature is that you can draw energy directly from the sun. Is this chi? Who knows? Who cares. It is just a name. But something is there for sure.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2...=social+media&utm_campaign=Facebook+clickthru

 

I suppose that once humans develop light harvesting antennae and start producing chlorophyll in their bodies, then chi kung will aid in their absorption of energy from the sun--that is, beyond the limited means that humans already possess.

Interesting stories, though I wouldn't dare say that they have connections to chi kung. Funnily enough, neither the plants nor the birds have to do anything special to use these abilities--they simply have them at their disposal. We humans, sad to say I suppose, do not.

 

I do remember reading somewhere that scientific testing found that consciousness actually has testable effects on matter where if there is no one to observe the matter it doesn't really exist or something like that. I don't remember where I found it though. Still, it's a cool idea.

If true it would give a new punchline to:
Joker: If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it does it make a sound.
Quantum Physicist: If no one's there to observe it there is no tree.

 

Schrödinger's cat. It basically says that the observer could affect the outcome of whether or not the cat would die at exactly a point in time, and at that point in time the cat can be alive and dead at the same time, and it will only be one or the other when the observer has a look.


Funnily enough, Schrödinger used this example to disprove Quantum theory... And now it is used as the essential example. :hat:

 

It is a distorted account of a legit phenomena. Randi discounted it a long time ago in Flim-Flam

 

you may be talking about the observer effect or Schrodingy and his cat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

 

The problem is that modern Science is only able to approximate identified phenomena with some experience which appears to duplicate the original. What does one do when there simply IS no known duplicate? We have come to understand that the typical atom is not a structure as much as an "Onion" of forces and influences, for instance. What does one do with that? We can innumerate elements and chemicals in the Human body but cannot say why and how I can generate a picture in my head. FWIW.

Best Wishes,

Bruce

 

Why would this be qi? I've heard many claims for qi related phenomena, but an ability to navigate by means of an inbuilt compass isn't one of them.

As for living organism exploiting quantum effects, why not? Humans have been studying quantum mechanics for decades, but evolution has had billions of years to come up with ways of exploiting quantum phenomena. Not through qi or magic, just random chance resulting in the evolution of efficient solutions to the problems of day to day survival.

Mike

 

Nice breakdown there Mitch.

 

Mitch you are an unending reservoir of sanity, objectivity, and rational argumentation. I thank whatever god(s) may or may not exist that people like you exist... or supposedly exist :bow1:

 

mike
it is not ability to navigate what I am talking about. it is ability to keep two electrons in quantum entangled state that I am talking about. The article states that: “A light-activated compass at the back of some birds' eyes may preserve electrons in delicate quantum states for longer than the best and most powerful artificial systems.” What kind of power exists inside living organisms that can do that? I am just asking question could that be chi? I am not stating anything. Just asking questions. And as I say it doesn’t matter what we call this force. The fact is that it exists, and no one know what it is or how it works.


mitch
when I say “These properties cannot be explained by classical laws of physics” this is true. They can’t. They can be explained by quantum laws of physics. This is quantum laws of physics working in a macro world, something that has not been observed anywhere else except in living systems. This is what is amazing about all this.
When I say: “cannot be replicated using any artificially created equipment. However, these properties can be observed in living organisms, can be measured, repeated and verified in laboratories.” this is true. Look at the first line of the article. No system built by men (artificial) can keep electrons in entangled state for so long. But living systems can.

When I say: “What gives these “supernatural” properties to living organisms and organically produced matter no one knows.“ this is just me thinking Mitch. I am not a parrot. I like thinking for myself.

When is say: “For those who draw their understanding of the world from what they had learned at school, you better start reading again. Our view of the world and life is changing beyond recognition as we speak.” I say it because most of the “scientific” arguments that I heard people use here is totally outdated and based on what science new 30 years ago, and what they have learned in school. Even today’s university courses are totally outdated. This is because so many things have changed even since the beginning of the school year.

The article clearly talks about quantum powered process which converts light into energy. No idea what you are arguing with here.

The main point I was trying to make, but which obviously have failed to reach some of you, is that the world of living organic things is different from the world of inorganic things. Why and how science doesn’t know but is begging to try to understand it. There are, from the modern measuring equipment point of view, unseen and undetectable forces but which are still powerful enough to do what most powerful artificial equipment can’t. When I ask a question: “are these forces chi?” I am merely asking a question. The fact is that ancient people, people who created chi kung, new that living organisms are different and new that there were forces that exist within living organisms which don’t exist anywhere else. They also found the way to use these forces for healing and fighting. Are they the same forces as the ones hinted in the above articles I have no idea. But it’s fun to think about this.

So Mitch, good effort but you missed the point. And you missed the point because you approached this with narrow minded attitude, looking to prove that your belief is right, rather than looking for knowledge. This is what inquisition used to do you know.

And for the back slappers, did you actually understand a word from any of this?

 

I have to say I’m not really sure what kind of discussion you are trying to start up here. It’s all well and good to say something along the lines of “it’s clear we don’t fully understand the natural world we live in”. It’s true, science is making new discoveries every day, but I’m not sure what you are trying to do here.

It reminds me of one of my favourite quotes...
“"Keep an open mind – but not so open that your brain falls out"

 

It is not just a name, and quantum entaglement is not an energy-intensive operation. We are only at the beginning of our understanding of how to create quantum-entangled particles (recently two tiny, tiny diamonds were successfully quantum-entangled using artificial means). At the speed we're going we'll catch up with nature pretty quickly.

Oh, and no, it's not chi. Most of our senses are based on some form of quantum interaction.

Wait, what? Do you know what the word quantum means? There's no such thing as a quantum-powered energy source. There are energy sources, which use quantum interactions in order to (for example) break atomic bonds and release the energy involved in their binding in order to produce heat, then convert into electricity (nuclear reactor). There are energy sources which rely on quantum interactions to burn fuels and produce heat, then convert it into electricty (incidentally the second part is done through more quantum interactions - it's pretty much how the universe appears to work).

There are no quantum-powered energy sources.

It is hardly surprising that quantum interactions are involved in photosynthesis - the only impressive bit here is that they've managed to determine more precisely where they're involved. Humans, incidentally, are not capable of photosynthesis which is why we need to eat.

It's more interesting than that. More experiments have shown that in fact it's to do with system complexity. By observing a quantum particle you are interacting with it, binding it into a system. If the system is complex enough then the uncertainty cannot be maintained and it collapses. Observers do this, but so do sufficiently complex systems (as far as we can tell - obviously it's rather hard to gather experimental results without including an observer somewhere along the line).

Nope, the tree's there. This particular interpretation is a massive oversimplification of the process. While valuable, it isn't actually the way things work. You're breaking into philosophy rather than science.

The observer couldn't affect the outcome, but they do determine the outcome. It's not determined through the observer's choice, it's determined by the act of observing and collapse of the probability field that observation causes.

It wasn't intended to disprove quantum theory but to demonstrate how ridiculous it would be if the universe actually worked this way. Sadly for Shroedinger, the universe does work this way on a quantum level.

The birds are not deliberately maintaining the electrons in a quantum entangled state.

As far as I'm aware the best and most powerful artificial systems for maintaining quantum entanglement are still very, very crude. Give it a decade.

None whatsoever. It's an evolved mechanism, not some supernatural power.

Chi as it's described in terms of being able to fly, heal, grow stronger, practise telekinesis and so on? No.

Actually we know a hell of a lot about how it works. We can artificially create a quantum entangled system, and we're getting better at maintaining it. We can calculate how the probability field will collapse (well, how it's likely to collapse) and make incredibly accurate descriptions of it. Using nothing but quantum field dynamics we can describe every phenomena in the universe (except gravity).

These quantum interactions are always at work in a macroscopic world, otherwise you wouldn't have a sense of smell. It has been observed in lots of places, and artificially created for experimental purposes.

No system yet built by men can keep electrons in a state of quantum entanglement for so long, no. But do remember that this science is still in its infancy and has a very, very long way to go.

You could equally argue that no quantum entanglements on the millimetre scale have been observed in nature, yet we've artificially created a system involving two entangled millimetre scale artificial diamonds - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12/02/diamond_quantum_computing_entanglement/

Evolution over time will produce incredibly complex systems, which work in very unintuitive ways (to our minds at least). We are getting better and better at understanding and replicating these systems.

Well actually it's been changing for the last few decades. Because quantum theory is just plain weird it's taken a lot of experimentation for it to become accepted. This isn't helped by the oversimplifications and pop science put out there by an ignorant media, nor by the weird and wonderful claims of quantum magic and other nonsense.

Given that universities are generally the ones doing this research in the first place, you might be stretching it a bit there. I can also reassure you that the scientific arguments used by most people here are not outdated at all. Everything is still based in experimentation, and results are generally published within twelve months of a study being completed at the most. They are then discussed, tested and analysed before the hypothesis can even be considered as a theory.

Well there's the neutrino results, and the narrowing of the area where the Higgs particle could be hiding, but until the neutrino results are confirmed and the Higgs is found (or not found, which would lead to some very interesting re-evaluations on the scale of Newton's theories when Einstein developed relativity) not much has actually changed this year in terms of our understanding of the universe.

You're giving me a headache. No, it doesn't talk about a quantum powered process which converts light into energy. Light, photons, are already quanta of energy. It talks about a process of quantum interactions which allows that electromagnetic energy to be used to fuel a chemical synthesis process which then produces a net gain in chemical energy.

No it isn't.

No. There are some very complex systems and interactions within nature which need further study, but there is nothing yet discovered and tested as outside our current model of the universe. If such were the case then we would be looking for a new model of the universe.

All that's happening here is that a couple of studies have determined more precisely how certain systems work. These systems will then be studied further in order to replicate them artificially for our own ends.

Nonsense. If a force can do something, then it is by definition not undetectable.

If a force is unseen, that means very little. Most forces are unseen - their effects are seen, measured, tested, verified and modelled in current theory.

Yes, you keep repeating this. The answer to your question is still no.

And they were wrong.

Please, any verified account of this, any scientific evidence, verified studies, anything along these lines would be good to support your statement here. Otherwise it's meaningless conjecture based on superstition rather than knowledge.

No.

I like reading fantasy books and speculating about how different formalised systems of magic might work, be extended and utilised. It's a good gedanken, and good fun for all involved. That doesn't make it real.

The inquisition used to torture people for the information that they wanted to verify their own beliefs, regardless of the facts. You ignore all evidence and explanations in order to continue pushing your own beliefs, making no effort to understand the arguments of those who disagree with you. I am perfectly willing, if you present solid, verifiable evidence that supports your beliefs, to change my world-view completely. You have been presented with solid, verifiable evidence which you simply discount and ignore.

Trust me, it's not us 'skeptics' who are like the inquisition here.

Yes. Did you?

 

Mitch

my expertise is certainly not english. i am serbian and quite illiterate in english. so i am really sorry if my english is not up to scratch.

bunny

but nature is already doing what we are just trying to do. how?

how is nature doing what sciense can't do? there must be some force, or process or something that enables living systems to do things that scientists can't achieve using machines.

in classical texts there is no explanation what chi is. actually the same texts talk about many diferent types of chi.

chi means energy, force, property, potential, lots of things. is it wrong to wander if this force that enables living organisms to to harness quantum effects, and these quantum effects themselves might have been detected, or observed by someone at some stage in human history and was labeled chi, as in something?

in the end the name is irelevant.

the point of this thread is to show how little science knows about living systems, and how even less most people know about latest scientific descoveries regarding living systems.

i can't go answering every single point now, i have to work as well. but i will try in following days. but i am glad that we are at least talking. no more of this is all just rubbish, haha funy jokes...by the way i like jokes a lot. we don't have to agree on chi, but we can agree that everyone has right to explore what they want, and just because you don't agree with it it doesn't mean its stupid.

also, quantum properties of living systems are not the end of the wanderous new discoveries that shed new light on life. i will post more soon.

 

nature = science.

the force nature is using is science.
chi in old texts were reference to things that the people of the time couldnt explain like we can - e.g. electricity, nerves, lymph, gravity.
chi is an outdated term.
they said chi because they hypothesised that everything they couldnt explain must happen by a "force" rather than searching deeper.
remember TCM is MUCH less advanced than science so everything they couldnt explain is better explained by science.

 

i know

i wasn't offended. i just know that my english is sometimes more like serbish

 

Most likely with similar processes to those we already use - just much more subtle. That's why we're studying them, so we can find out.

Science is a way of looking at and testing things, and working towards understanding. Technology is the method of applying scientific understanding to a particular end, whether that's lifting heavy loads or entangling quantum systems.

This is a big, big leap. There's no evidence of this whatsoever. Currently we can't clone human beings, but if we focused enough on doing so we probably could within a decade or two. Just because our technology cannot do something now does not mean it is impossible, it just means that our current understanding is not great enough to allow us to do so.

This is kind of my point. It's a catch-all phrase, like 'spiritual energy' or 'magic', and therefore of no use except in philosophy and visualisation exercises.

I suspect it is very, very unlikely that any 'ancients' had the ability to detect and measure the duration of a quantum entangled system. For one thing the level of technology required to do so would pretty much put them on at least a par with modern day.

No. The name is very, very relevant. If I call something biothaumic energy and try to sell it as a cure, even if my methods may actually be valid, I am betraying a complete lack of understanding of the systems behind them and should quickly be prevented from practicing, because my willingness to adhere to a false theory, un-backed by verifiable evidence, makes me either dangerous or a fraud. The same applies to chi.

Again, nonsense. Science has determined more about living systems and the mechanisms by which they work over the last two centuries than throughout the entirety of human history prior to that.

Plus these scientific discoveries are actually fairly minor, they're unimportant. We've known that the senses of living creatures rely on quantum interactions for quite a while now. This is only interesting as it shows a prolonged entanglement - which means when we understand the system behind it through study we should be able to replicate the same, which is another step towards the qubit.

I'm not aware of very many people who have just said 'this is all rubbish' about chi. Where it gets frustrating is that chi seems to be completely dependent on the individual person's beliefs, never is presented with decent evidence, and is rapidly starting to be stuck to genuine scientific investigations as a 'wow, this is weird, it must be chi since chi explains everything unknown - despite no evidence that it does so'.

Feel free. I've got a lot of time to kill while I wait for the Higgs hunt to finish.