Quantum Physics and Cellular Biology: A New Possibility?

[Imparcticle]

Is it possible to specify cellular biology by incorperating the laws of quantum physics?

 

[iansmith]

Not much I can say about this but there a paper http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WN2-456JR6M-35&_coverDate=09%2F30%2F2001&_alid=188131631&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=6950&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f0de1803fe0027ccd04606eb284f30c2. You may want to take a look.

 

[Imparcticle]

The link provided little information. But, I searched on google, and came across this AMAZING site: http://www.innerx.net/personal/tsmith/QuanCon.html
It covers many intriguing topics, like quantum consciousness.

 

[selfAdjoint]

AH, good old Tony Smith. The arxiv won't accept his papers, and lots of official physicists sniff at his theories, but when you want the inside skinny on subtle groups and algebras, he's the man to see.

Sadly the official rejection seems to have radicalized him, and he's now hanging around with some much less repectible fringers.

 

[loseyourname]

Is it possible to specify cellular biology by incorperating the laws of quantum physics?

What do you mean by "specify cellular biology?"

 

[Imparcticle]

Loseyourname:
I mean "Is it possible to use the laws of quantum physics to describe the behavior of cells and their counterparts?"

Considering the fact that quantum physics/quantum mechanics describes the universe at a microscopic level, and also considering the fact that cells are also microscopic, it made sense to me to ask the question.

I'll lay my cards out on the table:
This thread, in conjunction with other threads I have started (i.e., Conway's Game of Life..., Freud is Back: A must read) are all branches of an idea I have for a science contest.
My idea primarily concerns cellular automata and chaos theory. After reading an article concerning cellular automata, it occurred to me that it may be possible that the brain is a product of a kind of cellular automata. According to the theory (of cellular automata, which I will abbreviate as CA),
simple rules can give rise to complexity. This holds true for chaos theory as well. Take a look at this link: http://www.math.com/students/wonders/life/life.html
The rules of the game start out simple but then eventually come to a point where it is not possible to determine the future state of the "cells". As a result, I have come to the conclusion that the brain (not only the brain) could also be an example a product of a kind of cellular automata. In early brain development (which I have yet to research, so I will welcome any corrections or comments concerning this subject), stemcells become neurons (does anyone know how??) and the neurons go through mitosis(?)...I'm running into sticky ground here so I'll just outline what I'm getting at: The brain (or rather, what is to be the brain) may undergo simple, predictable processes that eventually lead up to what we recognize as a fully developed brain. At some (not neccesarily definite) point, the simple rules become unpredictable.
I am not saying there is a very fine line between the emergence of complexity from simplicity, rather, I am prone to believe they are interdependent. (Is that true?) To illustrate, let us take some of Freud's ideas of psychoanalysis (which are supported by scientific evidence, according to SCIAM magazine. I will post the article as soon as I can.). Most of our conscious tendencies are motivated by subconscious motivations. This encompasses intinctive motives and psychological tendencies. In light of this information (from the SCIAM article), I have derived questions: Just how much of our conscious motives are subconscious? How do we know our conscious thoughts and intentions are independent of the laws of nature?

And finally, in light of all the data I have gathered and summarized in above paragraphs, I have one last question: Is it possible to quantify neural processes, or even the biology of the entire body (whether or not it is human)?

[red]PLEASE NOTE THAT I MAY NEED TO PRINT THIS THREAD TO USE IN MY SCIENCE PROJECT LOG (which is a requirement for the science competition). So anything you say on this thread will be (possibly) read by other scientists who will judge my project.[/red]

Thank you.

 

[Imparcticle]

AH, good old Tony Smith. The arxiv won't accept his papers, and lots of official physicists sniff at his theories, but when you want the inside skinny on subtle groups and algebras, he's the man to see.

Sadly the official rejection seems to have radicalized him, and he's now hanging around with some much less repectible fringers.

So he isn't considered a very reliable source?

 

[selfAdjoint]

So he isn't considered a very reliable source?

I don't want to go that far. You would have trouble depending something based on his theories to a great many physicists, but not to all physicists. Contrary to the opinion of many cranks, physics is not completely monolithic. In any case the spirit of "let a hundred flowers bloom (as long as the math stands up)" would suggest that the recent moves by the arxiv to block such views as his are bad for science.