Talk:Quantum biology

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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? ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Hmmm, that sounds like a topic for a sub-section of the article, or a different article Quantum biology (alternative theories). ——Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Fixed. Biophys (talk) 17:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

text:  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)

text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Question

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

message: "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)
thread_title:  "Undisclosed file" seems the epitome of unsourced 

message: 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.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmargraf (talk • contribs) 16:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Significant Literature" is a collection of amazon links to pseudoscience books 

message: Hello, I'm a fourth year chemistry major at northeastern university in boston and have been doing some research on the radical-pair mechanism of magetoreception, which has become a possible exemplar of quantum biology insofar as the entanglement of radical-pairs is relevant to biochemical signaling.
I want to spend some time editing the magnetoreception section of this article. I want to clarify my intentions for anyone looking to edit my edits. I want to explain the radical-pair mechanism in more detail, link it to spin chemistry, and provide a clear proof of principle that the radical-pair mechanism could be relevant to magnetoreception. This involves stating the protein cryptochrome as the candidate biomolecule, and FAD as the candidate chromophore, though this is only a statement of popularity within the literature, not fact, as the literature itself is quite clear on. As such I will be conservative and transparent (citations) with my claims.
 Next, for this topic to be considered quantum biology, entanglement must be relevant to magnetoreception, since this mechanism does not necessarily require non-trivial quantum mechanics to be affected by magnetic fields. This is an important fact for readers to keep in mind, especially since quantum biology is such a hysterical field these days.
I look forward to feedback
Marco0126 (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  magnetoreception, Radical-pair mechanism, cryptochrome and FAD 

message: I learned of this topic from listening to the Be Reasonable podcast - where a pair of skeptics interview a believer in "fringe" ideas. On that episode (#6) the subject of the interview, Naveena Shine, repeatedly mentioned the findings of Quantum biology as the reason the nonsense she was spouting (Reincarnation, clairvoyance, communication with past and future selves...) had backing.(See here.) I believe a section needs to be added to this article regarding misuse of this emerging science by peddlers of pseudoscience, the occult and alt-med. That way, when a Google search for the term returns this article to folks being sucked into the nonsense, there will be a section explicitly clarifying the situation. Thoughts? RobP (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Although a bit old, since this is still relevant I'll post here: like for Interpretations of quantum mechanics, some can be respectful of hypotheses that can be realistically tested while others can be strictly speculative and sometimes even be apologetics for idealism, disregarding already known contrary evidence.  Some aspects of low level biology are interesting, while at the same time pseudoscience advocates try to give an impression of legitimacy to their quantum mysticism (and quantum mind) by confusing words together, including for processes that are expected to be explanable using classical physics.  This very quantum biology article should remain within the scope of chemical biology that doesn't propose that the inside is magic (or with non-local subatomic effects needed, etc), and perhaps a "not to be confused" hatnote could point at nonscientific topics with similar names...  http://www.ks.uiuc.edu/Research/quantum_biology/ seems to be a good summary of the context.  It's also very theoretical and current, as I don't find specific mentions under this terminology in various biology textbooks I have (even if they cover photosynthesis chemistry, or mention that light-sensitive organs can detect photons).  —PaleoNeonate – 18:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

text: Update: I just reverted a recent addition.  —PaleoNeonate – 16:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, the article has been around for 10 years, and has 58 decent citations, so it doesn't look *especially* problematic. Clearly the edges of the topic could get a bit frayed, but that is true of many genuine topics. A hatnote might possibly help a tiny bit, but then again it's another bit of clutter between the reader and the facts in the article, and such things probably deter the pseudoscientist about as much as a blade of grass deters a bull rhinoceros, so I'd not think it worth it really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the input, —PaleoNeonate – 12:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoscience as related to this topic 

message: Re: "As the electron transfers through the and the that usually would be a barrier for the electrons and would lose its energy due" I suspect a word is missing where I have bolded. ϢereSpielChequers 18:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Query

message: Would this "vibrational frequency" be the excitatory state due to the molecule's thermal energy, that is hypothesized to affect chemical binding to receptors?  I may be missing something as there's no mention of heat in ...  My physics and chemistry courses are far behind and this question is mostly to reassure myself that "molecule vibrational frequency" has nothing to do with the way it's used in esotericism.  Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 06:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Molecule vibrational frequency 

message: Hey all, I am studying quantum tunneling (QT) in mitochondria processes. One question upon reading this article: I was hoping I could contribute a new section on Mitochondria and how they use QT; would it be advisable to insert a new section on mitochondria specifically, as in "Mitochondria" or "Organelles", or would it be insertable under the header Enzymatic activity (quantum biochemistry)? What are your thoughts? All the best, PhoenyxFeatherz (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enzymatic activity (quantum biochemistry) 

message: As I read through this article, I get the impression that quantum biology is far from "settled science."  There are lots of phrases like "can be speculative", "most current research is theoretical and subject to questions that require further experimentation", "suggested that...might" (two weasel words in one sentence), "critical follow-up studies question the interpretation of these results", "there have been multiple controversial results in experiments", "It has been proposed that...", "direct evidence...has not yet been obtained", and others that I've missed in a quick reading.
There have apparently been several major revisions to this article.  Back around 2007, there were pseudo-science links which were removed, and around 2010 there were "swaths of irrelevant references" (note by S. Hoyer here on this talk page), and as recently as 2016, Jmargraf mentioned that "Most of the books in "Significant Literature" seem controversial and/or irrelevant."  These things have been cleaned up, but I still get the impression that not every biologist who works in this general domain would agree that quantum biology is "real."
I'm not saying any of this is *wrong*, and obviously down at the bottom level all chemistry is quantum physics.  And my concern is *different* from the legitimate concerns in the Talk section entitled "Pseudoscience as related to this topic."  But I am wondering whether there should be a section on controversies in this quantum biology field (if it is indeed controversial), or at least some kind of disclaimer.
:: Agree, none of it is wrong. The field is live, i.e. scientists continue to work on it and challenge each others' findings, i.e. normal science, so the cautious words will often be justified. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  That short section seems to be off-topic for this article, as it's moving beyond biology to biometrics and so forth. Personally I'd remove it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: How controversial is this?

message: — Assignment last updated by Smbiophysics (talk) 03:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: BYU-Biophysics, CELL 568

message: First this is a testable theory, pseudoscientific theories aren't.
Second there are new evidences 2022,2024 for quantum effects in microtubuleshttps://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jpcb.3c07936
And third "Orch OR is Pseudoscience " is claimed by blogposts, while actual scientific articles are in favour 176.0.203.52 (talk) 06:47, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we drop Pseudoscience accusations for Orch OR?.