Is decoherence the quantum/classical boundary?

Science and Technology
1

I think they are the same thing. Somewhere around 50,000 bonded atoms will automatically be decohered. Anything smaller requires a decoherence event in its path to be classical.

Can any volume of free particles, coherent light, and 30 micrometer objects (for interaction with particles without causing decoherence) be an environment for quantum weirdness events just waiting for us to do something with?

The most obvious “something” is upgrading quantum computers and harnessing photosynthesis. It’s a long shot …but, maybe even alchemy. Strong, unhindered, wireless power is another candidate. If we find a way to control coherent quantum waves, possibly with the electromagnetic force, we could make hoverboards.

2
..but, maybe even alchemy.
 
3

Alrightlie now, so we have an example of a poser finding a fancy word to toss around and suddenly he’s an expert to all who don’t appreciate the word, concept.

Oh but try to get some answers from him and he’ll run away like a sock’em puppet to pop from another hole.

"Quantum decoherence is the loss of quantum coherence. In quantum mechanics, particles such as electrons are described by a wave function, a mathematical representation of the quantum state of a system; a probabilistic interpretation of the wave function is used to explain various quantum effects. As long as there exists a definite phase relation between different states, the system is said to be coherent. A definite phase relationship is necessary to perform quantum computing on quantum information encoded in quantum states. Coherence is preserved under the laws of quantum physics."

 

"Decoherence can be viewed as the loss of information from a system into the environment (often modeled as a heat bath),[4] since every system is loosely coupled with the energetic state of its surroundings. Viewed in isolation, the system’s dynamics are non-unitary (although the combined system plus environment evolves in a unitary fashion).[5] Thus the dynamics of the system alone are irreversible. As with any coupling, entanglements are generated between the system and environment. These have the effect of sharing quantum information with—or transferring it to—the surroundings.

Decoherence has been used to understand the collapse of the wave function in quantum mechanics. Decoherence does not generate actual wave-function collapse. It only provides an explanation for apparent wave-function collapse, as the quantum nature of the system “leaks” into the environment."


Yeah, yeah, I suppose next he’s going to laugh at me for reaching to Wiki for some facts - since he’s the self-certain expert on this. The expert that refused to field all uncomfortable questions.

 

4

Get a clue, you are not worth the effort.

5
Somewhere around 50,000 bonded atoms will automatically be decohered.
Claims a lot but doesn't explain a thing!

Why 50,000 atom?, what electro-magnetic phenomena makes that a magic number? Can Joe Explain?

What will Joe confine those atoms within, or does this occur in the natural environment? Can Joe Explain?

How will Joe convert the action of 50,000 atoms into useful energy?

Where are Joe’s formulas?

{Okay, I admit I’m in no position to judge but I am one of those consensus sort of guys - so it would be great just to see if you’ve actually written out anything scientifically serious, by assessing the appraisals of others who do happen to have a deeper understanding the intricacy - rather than simply the rough outlines, the way I do. }

6

I’ve already explained many times that a virus is at the boundary. They have around 50,000 atoms. They will not show fringes if shot in a double slit experiment.

7
Viruses won't show fringes if shot in a double slit experiment.
Seriously? How many have actually tried that?

And what your conclusion from that sort of result?

How does that result lead to a weapon for killing viruses? If that’s what you are hinting at. If not, then?

8

I already said finding their resonant frequency would render them harmless

9

See and if you wonder by I can be so rude to you, it’s that you are constantly passing off nonsense as serious.

@pittsburghjoe "a virus is at the boundary. They have around 50,000 atoms."
http://book.bionumbers.org/how-big-are-viruses/

Viruses range in size for 1,7oo to 170,000 genomic base pairs, although there are giants, of over a million to under three million genomic base pairs.

Joe, you tell me, is a genomic base pair the same as a nucleotide?

1,700 x 35 = 58,500 For the tiniest viruses known

170,000 x 35 = 5,850,000 For the large ones and what, many millions for the largest.

Or is a genomic base pair made up of four nucleotides?

You tell me.

 

 

So you see I don’t need to be a genius or even an expert to ferret out that you are blowing smoke.

Excuse me if I’ve grown to hate deliberate liars when it comes to discussing physical reality. ;-\

 

Good evening sir

 

 

 

as mentioned by Alec Cawley. If you believe that the genetic material wholly constitutes the virus, then, with an average of 35 atoms per nucleotide (base plus sugar plus phosphate), you get 60,000 atoms.

However, the physical form of the virus is a 17-nm diameter icosahedron – protein walls surrounding a water and DNA-filled core. The virus’s buoyant density has been measured to be 1.35 g/ml, which computes to a viral mass of ~3.4 x 10^-18 g. The mass of the DNA is 1.0 x 10^-18 g of this. The mass of the water is likely very small, based on my intuition as a sometime biophysicist. So let’s assume that 2.4 x 10^-18 g mass is protein, and assume that the protein’s elemental composition is the same as the average for bacteria. (If I had infinite time, I would look up the capsid protein sequence and calculate this, but this is good enough.) The mean atomic weight for atoms in a protein is about 12.85. Putting all these numbers together, we get ~120,000 atoms in the viral proteins and 60,000 in the genome, yielding 180,000 atoms of virus.

10

bottom quote belongs to https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-lowest-possible-number-of-atoms-a-virus-can-have

11

It’s a drop in the bucket you fn retard. No one has ever gotten as close as me at guessing the boundary size.

12
@pittsburghjoe "It’s a drop in the bucket you fn retard. No one has ever gotten as close as me at guessing the boundary size."
What drop in what bucket? ..... 50,000? ..... the varied size of virus? ..... your claim? ..... your guess?

No one has gotten as close to you at guessing the “boundary size”?

What boundary are you talking about?

How are you going to manipulate that boundary?

What are you going to achieve by manipulating the boundary size of a few viruses? Or?

 

You don’t need to call me a f’n retart, not that I don’t appreciate the need to let off verbal steam once in a while, but because to makes no sense.

What do you want a free right?

You waltz in here thumbing your chest with what you see as Earth Shattering realizations, that the smartest brains in the business have overlooked, yet you get angry at the simplest of questions.

If you knew half the stuff you want me to believe you know, you’d be tying me into knots since I only understand the barest outlines of physics. But I know how thinking, learning, and problem solving works, and there’s definitely a recognizable difference between lip flapping and someone who knows their topic. Bullshitters have all sort of ‘tells’, red flags and stinky red herrings that are clearly recognizable.

The way your game works is that since you have no actual understanding to enlighten us with, thus no substance to shut me up with, all you’re left with is indignation, resentment, anger, ridicule, name calling - yet, yet, in the end you never try explaining your theory, you simply walk away and call it a victory in your own mind and then take the dog’n pony show to the next block.

13

Trying to take it back to first base,

Is your 50,000 about the number of atoms it takes for the slit experiment to breakdown?

If that’s the case, sure it seems an interesting thing, heck might even be signifying something.

But, what?

And how pray tell manipulate it at the macro level?

14

Oh, and incidentally, what kind of atoms are we taking about, light, medium, heavy atoms, there’s quite a spread there also to be multiplying by 50k.

Generic atom is so vague.

15

There is something strange about the distance light can travel in one femtosecond. 0.3 micrometers …that is around the size of a virus.

All you need to grasp is that there is a boundary.