Talk:Quantum biology

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): OMM93 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Ape222, Linde8.

Untitled

Was originally a rather bizarre essay---I looked at the deleted version,--much original content lost during the removal of the absurdities. Trying to clean up some of the rest, but essentially might be better to start over. 22:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The references from the earlier essay were similarly useless--I looked at the deleted version, but they were not worth rescuing. DGG (talk) 22:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Technically, it was originally a very short article, a layman's definition, and it remained that way for a long time. Only recently was the "essay" added. Those of you with powers to make things disappear should restore the talk-page templates that were here. Thanks. –Outriggr § 22:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Aye, I did a partial restore, since there didn't seem much point to restoring the patent nonsense that got it deleted. I've restored the templates, but removed the medicine one as that seems to have been added after the bizarre essay version replaced Outriggr's sensible page. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Studies

The sources cited state clearly what is cited, which is fully correct. If there are ot her sources providing classical explanation to that phenomena, please cite the sources and pages otherwise be so kind as to avoid removing correctly cited content arbitrarily ☤'ProfBrumby 19:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I support the version that Moresci protected. Cope's article is an old theoretical discussion--it could stay in, but isnt all that relevant to the current state of research. Ho is also out of date and general, and again could stay in, but is not a source for anything specific. The KSU review page is I think acceptable, though it isnt strictly published; its acceptable therefore as an external reference.

However, Pitkanen, Matti (2006). Topological Geometrodynamics. Luniver Press, pp 9, 13, 129, 152-153, 377-378. ISBN 978-095511708 is the very essence of unreliability. Matti Pitkanen (physicist) was deleted back in 04 and 06, but would be deleted again today.

However, Adam, your edit summaries are not models of tact. DGG (talk) 03:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. But I was a bit under stress that day. Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Question

Is the Quantum biology that people are attacking as bunk the same QB that I find articles on in Science Daily and the Nature website? ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

No, and that's the problem - it's an actual, respected scientific field, but this article was instead focusing on fringe theories and alternative medicine speculation about quantum mechanics Adam Cuerden ^talk 13:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, that sounds like a topic for a sub-section of the article, or a different article Quantum biology (alternative theories). ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it might be merged to Quantum Chemistry, but it has no useful content to be merged to Quantum Chemistry. Biophys (talk) 01:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Biophys (talk) 17:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

"Studies have shown that the light-induced excited state of electrons in light-gathering proteins are instantaneously transferred to nearby reaction centers (proteins that use this energy to create oxygen and ATP) in the phospholipid membrane. This instantaneous transfer of the excited state, according to the studies, is accomplished by quantum entanglement." This statement is incorrect, the energy is not transferred instantaneously, but rather on a femtosecond timescale and is not direct evidence of quantum entanglement, see Nature, 2010, 463, 644 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.227.97 (talk) 15:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, the energy transfer is clearly not instantaneous but there is evidence for entanglement (as cited). I rewrote the the paragraph adding references. --S. Hoyer (talk) 07:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The "further reading" Hameroff and Penrose citations are "speculative" to say the least --- why cite such nonsense just to have Tegmark tell you it is bunk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.247.222 (talk) 15:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree also. The problem with quantum biology is that there is a small amount of good science that fits in this category and a whole lot of complete nonsense. I wonder if the people who fit in the "good science" part even call their field quantum biology -- or if it is only the BS people who use this term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.3.129.221 (talk) 20:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

and the cited article "the spooky world of quantum biology is just fiction". Someone seriously needs to edit this page down to what is real science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.247.222 (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Care needs to be taken in quoting Tegmark. His calculations are thought to be correct, but the conclusion drawn in some quarters that quantum coherence and entanglement was not relevant to organic systems is put in question by the research referred to in this article. See 'Steady state entanglement in open and noisy quantum systems at high temperature' - L.Hartmann et al - Phys Rev A vol 74, issue 5, for discussion of how entanglement may be reset in high temperature systems far from thermal equilibrium. Persephone19 (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Current state

Currently the article is just one paragraph about the subject and then some pages of "references" (actually a list of related literature). The article needs expert attention. 82.181.76.172 (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I deleted large swaths of irrelevant references and wrote a new introduction including a more careful definition. Hopefully it should be clearer now what the article is referring to. S. Hoyer (talk) 12:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

eds show little interest in published stuff on this Datafile28 (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

prop cover last para see Sarovar, M., Ishizki, fleming, g., whaley, engel, calhoun, cheng, scholes. Datafile28 (talk) 16:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

 : Nothing since 2009. See Greg Scholes under External links, Quantum Biology Workshop Datafile28 (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

"Undisclosed file" seems the epitome of unsourced

"Recent studies conducted by CERN and CNRS have found a communicative cellular linkage between different life forms, of different species, in an undisclosed file. This is thought to be the beginning breakthrough of Quantum biology."

Setting aside what the first sentence even means, the sentence itself says it has no citation, so presumably doesn't belong here. And who is it that's claimed to think this the beginning breakthrough etc, and where's a citation for that? Gwideman (talk) 07:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

"Significant Literature" is a collection of amazon links to pseudoscience books

Most of the books in "Significant Literature" seem controversial and/or irrelevant to the field of quantum biology as described in the article. Also, I find it odd that they link directly to amazon. I suggest removing this entire section. If no one objects (and suggests a revision) I will do it.