Link to QM might not be "proved" as you say, but it's been tested. And the results were it's not really supported by the evidence, AFAIK!
-
-
-
Replying to @LEMacKz
This is one of many reasons I'm weary and wary of books, if it's the case they propose stuff outside of what has been peer reviewed, cos
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I'm so exhausted and cautious of books which do this.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest
For what it is worth, they are very clear with what they are speculating about and what is proven. It's got a lot of discussion.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @LEMacKz
Ah, that's great. Thanks for the info — appreciate the papers! One last question out of curiosity again they don't mention Orch-OR, right?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @o_guest
They mention that microtubles are too big for quantum effects and mention that this theory has been debunked.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
-
Replying to @o_guest
Yeah they have about 4 pages on it. They go onto discuss QM and selective ion channels and action potentials.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
With regards to Orch-OR: "it is fair to say that his proposal has, to date, few adherents in the quantum physics community"
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Penrose is pretty much who this comic is about: http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2556
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.

nice one