Talk:Quantum biology

Biology Start‑class

	Biology portal Quantum biology is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

‹See TfM›

Physics Start‑class Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Studies

The sources cited state clearly what is cited, which is fully correct. If there are other 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]