dsa@dlogics.COM (David Angulo) (06/27/90)
In article <62781@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>, loren@tristan.llnl.gov (Loren Petrich) writes: > > In a discussion of Hayes vs. Searle, one person took me to > task for declaring that macroscopic quantum-mechanical effects are > insignificant.... I think that I ought to have clarified > my position, since one could argue that all of the Universe, including > ourselves, could not possibly exist in the form it does without the > assistance of quantum effects. > > My argument was that, at larger than atomic scales, one does > not see "specifically" quantum effects under most circumstances. I was that person who "took you to task" although that was not my intention. I was merely to clarify your position. You had said that QM effects are damped out. I merely meant to add that there are some cases where it does not (as you modified your statement better than I by saying this time that one does not see these effects "under MOST circumstances.") Yes, QM explains most of the universe including what already was explained by classical physics. My point was simply that there are cases that are NOT explained by classical physics (including relitavistic theory) that IS explained by QM which is why it was invented/discovered. I do agree that using QM as a method of explaining why brain tissue is different than semiconductors material is unfounded. -- David S. Angulo (312) 266-3134 Datalogics Internet: dsa@dlogics.com 441 W. Huron UUCP: ..!uunet!dlogics!dsa Chicago, Il. 60610 FAX: (312) 266-4473