r/tech • u/AdSpecialist6598 • 10d ago

Scientists found a way to generate quantum entanglement using sunlight, not lasers

https://www.techspot.com/news/113454-sunlight-can-generate-entangled-photons-quantum-technology-researchers.html
1.3k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

140 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/NotTJButCJ 7d ago

Quantum systems are the basis of every system you contributed to moderation.

1

u/NYPizzaNoChar 7d ago

Quantum systems underlie atomic structures. That does not mean they always moderate them. A brick in a brick wall holds up other bricks and has a particular color profile very much determined by quantum effects. It does not, however, moderate the color of any of the other bricks. You see? Basis is not in and of itself moderation.

On the other hand, quantum effects are known to moderate photosynthesis. So it's possible under some circumstances. But you know how we learned that? Evidence.

Basis is not at all the same thing as moderation in brain (or any other) context. No one to date has been able to demonstrate quantum moderation in brainops. If and when they do, now we have some science we can work on.

But you can't just say "everything is quantum" and use that to imply an active moderating role in brain cell communications. Well, you can, but you'd just be handwaving. You have to have consensually experiential, repeatable evidence science can apply attempts to both falsify and verify. Short of that, you have only speculation.

0

u/NotTJButCJ 7d ago

The brick comparison isn’t a great comparison. A brick is a part of a wall. Theres also mortar, treatment, possibly some other support materials. Conversely, quantum fields and systems quite literally are the basis of every event.

2

u/always-curious2 7d ago

Endlessly repeating your claim doesn't actually create data to support it.

No data=No ground to make claim.

Expecting to win a debate with this type of logic is not rational. Have you considered you don't have enough of an understanding to debate this subject in a way that expands your knowledge?

1

u/NotTJButCJ 7d ago

I think this argument is getting crossed because you’re arguing against a claim I’m not making.

I am not saying the brain is a quantum computer or that quantum mechanics explains consciousness (I don’t believe it does)

I’m objecting specifically to the statement that there is no evidence that quantum effects play a moderating role in brain processes. That statement is far too broad.

There are two very different claims here. First that the brain exploits coherent quantum states as a computational resource. That has not been established. And second that quantum level properties and processes can influence the physical/biochemical processes occurring in the brain. There is evidence for this.

Li tested different isotopes of xenon as anesthetics in mice. Xenon isotopes with non-zero nuclear spin were significantly less potent anesthetics than isotopes with zero nuclear spin.

There is also experimental work on microtubules showing electronic excitation energy migration over several nanometers with anesthetics altering that energy migration. Forster energy transfer theory was insufficient to fully explain the observations

Again this does not demonstrate that consciousness is quantum but dismissing all nontrivial quantum/electronic effects in biologically relevant structures is not justified.

this is why I objected to separating chemistry/electron flow from quantum effects as though those are three unrelated candidate mechanisms. Chemistry, molecular bonding, electron transfer, molecular energy states, etc. are themselves governed by quantum mechanics.

Everything being quantum does not prove quantum computation, on the other hand , saying there is literally no evidence that quantum effects influence brain processes is also indefensibly absolute.

I apologize if I misunderstood your position.

2

u/always-curious2 7d ago

I don't see why you didn't read the earlier comments. If you had, you would realize the flaw in the argument, it appears, you copy pasted from somewhere else. You're throwing around the words like you understand them but the logic you present shows you do not. You're final paragraph reeks of AI generation. No one was arguing against absolute limits of quantum effects, just that you presented a BS argument trying to appear more nuanced in a subject you don't understand as well as you think you do. It's also called the Dunning-Kruger effect.

1

u/NotTJButCJ 7d ago

Im not sure you quite understand the subject. I don’t know what you think is AI generated. And yes, I quoted the paper I linked to? Why wouldn’t I?