Give it to me straight /sci/, does quantum mechanics play a non-trival role in photosynthesis?

[Anonymous No.14634649]

To what extent does the scientific community accept quantum coherence in photosynthesis? What about in other important biological processes?

The big question is, of course for consciousness, but I think these may be relevant beforehand.

[Anonymous No.14634680]

>>14634649
Light is quantum mechanical phenomenon

Everything to do with electrons, protons, neutrons, and photons, is quantum mechanical.

Ever since quantum mechanics was discovered, every single thing in the universe is a quantum mechanical phenomenon;

Classical mechanics is a misnomer and maybe a red herring if I knew what that meant. """""Classical""""" mechanics does not exist, Quantum mechanics exists, and allows what is called """"Classical"""" Mechanics to exist, but because quantum is fundamental, classical is inescapably inseparably attatched.

[Anonymous No.14634685]

>>14634680
""""Classical"""" mechanics may as well be called "Quantum Mechanics at Large Scale"

[Anonymous No.14634749]

>>14634680
I said NON-TRIVIAL.
I was trying to avoid this response. That's why I specifically mentioned a NON-TRIVIAL ROLE. What you're describing is trivial, it's easy to say that quantum mechanics underpins classical phenomena. What I'm saying is, does an accurate understanding of photosynthesis move beyond classical mechanics?
>>14634685
What about if gravitational Objective Reduction theories hold?

[Anonymous No.14634904]

>>14634749
>What I'm saying is, does an accurate understanding of photosynthesis move beyond classical mechanics?

Quantum mechanics is just a greater resolution of understanding;

So photosynthesis was understood:
Carbon based planets capture light and use it's energy for mechanical biological functions?

Quantum is all about descreteness compared to continum, right?

Photo electric effect?

Why do you care about this and photosynthisis?


>What about if gravitational Objective Reduction theories hold?
Don't know what that is.

There is likely only 1 field/aether and electrons and quarks (pretty much the only stuff that exists) interacts with it differently on different scales; and due to differing clusters and rates of possible velocity, there are relative laggings of effects, everything a herky jerky smooth balence of chain reactions from the incomprehensibly tiny to the incomprehensibly large, though all in all, quite stable and locked in lock step place.

Is the Sun a single object that moves though space; or is where the Sun is, a quigillion quarks and electrons moving through space.

Does the space feel the many and the whole differently and react to them differently? Possibly, and thus, thus.

[Anonymous No.14635082]

>>14634904
>Is the Sun a single object that moves though space; or is where the Sun is, a quigillion quarks and electrons moving through space.

>Does the space feel the many and the whole differently and react to them differently?
Intersting questions

[Anonymous No.14635201]

>>14635082
>Does the space feel the many
All will feel the many, anon.
The many is all.

[Anonymous No.14635280]

>>14635082
well the Sun is traveling some specific direction in space (it's also rotating), refer to the forward facing surface area of the sun as it's nose. It's nose is always contacting new location of gravity field/em field first.

-------------Sun---------->G- Field

((((( ###########))))))
((((( earth--------Sun-->))))))
((((( ###########))))))


But does an amount of the Gravity field go through and inside the Sun?

So an amount of the Gravity field is first touched by the surface area of the suns continuously coliding rotating nose

An amount of that gravity field is tossed out of the way by this action;

An amount of that gravity field is not tossed out of the way, but travels into the body of the Sun?

So that is where the individual parts that make up the whole possibly have their interactions with the field?

Or the Suns body, back is compressed into its center of mass, by its constant rubbing up against the gravity field it is constantly traveling through;

Though the thought comes to mind why doesn't the gravity field slow down the sun?

The answers that come to mind are; the enitire gravity field of the milky way is like a conveyor belt revolving around the center, so the sun is not so much boring through gravity field, but like a sphere riding a merry go round;

Then the thought comes why would it not increase the distance of it's orbit in that situation, what keeps it locked in, and the answer that comes is, having to do with it's rotation, counterscts the forces that would compell it to drift outward

[Anonymous No.14635542]

>>14634749
>What about if gravitational Objective Reduction theories hold?
Brainlet cope.

[Anonymous No.14636547]

>>14635280
Will respond to this in a bit, brb

[Anonymous No.14636685]

>What about if gravitational Objective Reduction theories hold?
>Don't know what that is.

Gravity is collapses the wave function on higher scales. The Diosi-Penrose model was the first of these.

[Anonymous No.14637655]

>>14636685
Planets and stars contain different masses, but traveling in the same reference frame at same velocity, so is there some gradient lagging as the gravity field passes into a star and earth where it interacts with each different mass differently (as lights travel through different materials at different rates,)

[Anonymous No.14637661]

>>14636685

why are you blatantly making shit up?

[Anonymous No.14638006]

>>14637655
Actually interesting to say this