The Magical Leaf: The Quantum Mechanics of Photosynthesis 

Natural regulation of temperature (and implication on energy) in life systems ?

complexity of chlorophyll molecules

I am not a biologist but my view may explain your doubt the one who created leaves is the God and the one who tries to architect a Si-chip is human.

@@Arshath13 Evolution created leaves (and quite possibly with the help of precursor cyanobacteria). They are an adapted appendage for a growing organism to harvest photons in large quantities.

@@micaelmaya-peinl535In one million year in the future. genetic engineering is highly developed. bio genetics are able to construct intelligent beings with awareness. that is certainly a realistic assessment. then they bring a group of this artificial humans on another planet, without any history records. longer time is gone, they gonna build a civilization, and some of them are believe in a creator, some of them are not sure, others will be atheists.

Indeed!

They literally don't, paleobotany knows when plants began and generally when the symbiotic relationship with cyanobacteria began. Plants are not literally timeless.

@@whatabouttheearth hes saying they are very resilent and have lasted for a long time

LouisianaGatorGirl yes ..... thanks

I think you're on to something.

When will we wake up from this simulation?

Why? I agree this reality could be a sim, but how does this point to that?

@@blucat4 ikr. Just because electrons are weird and funky doesn't mean they're simulated in a matrix machine

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-_qgSz1UmcBM.html Jim likes your video as he used a very similar explanation on his BBC4 prog aired last Thursday 14th Dec at 8pm GMT

Yes. Shave your head, make sure you've been eating lots of chlorophyll plants, and walk around in the sun. Enough sun will get through your skull for photosynthesis to occur. 😃😃😂😂 No, I doubt it, you need all the complex machinery in a leaf, not just chlorophyll. But I cannot prove it's impossible .. 😉

@@blucat4 all living organisms or things technically have the same chemicals just modified for the environment or specifies, just have to restructure them 😉

I’d still eat Doritos anyways cause they taste good

we don't have chloroplast organelle, so 0% probability

We are symbiotically linked to mitochondria not the chloroplasts that are descents of cyanobacteria. It is not the plant per se that does photosynthesis, it is the chloroplasts/cyanobacteria who are the descents of the ones that caused the Great Oxidation Event, the largest mass extinction on earth (although technically it can be officially counted as a mass extinction because it's only peripheral evidences). So the cells in plants that have their own origin are ancestors of the ones that caused the atmosphere to be oxygenated in the first place. Our line of vertebrate sarcopterygians adapted in the water, eventually as rhipidistians to have lungs. The entire setup is different, we are developed to use what the cyanobacteria shit out as a waste product, we would have to shit oxygen 😂

The other way around. The waveform is simply the model that's previously been used to describe superposition.

Or you can just use the pilot wave theory and render the superposition speculation irrelevant.

a wave of what?

a field with wave charecteristics which applies an kinetic force to particles. Fields are nothing new or extreme to exist in nature.

What about a boson pair, riding an electromagnetic current, or spinning around a water current,

+Mondestrasz You're right - the superposition can't last forever, and the process by which it breaks down is called decoherence. This is much more general that the (now rather dated) concept of the "jolt of observation", and is the result of general interaction with the surroundings - especially if they're warm, and thus subject to thermal agitation. The wonder of photosynthesis is its ability to keep this decoherence at bay just long enough to allow the reaction centre to be found by the quantum search process, thus allowing essentially 100 per cent of the energy of the original photon to reach the reaction centre.

That's pretty fascinating can you suggest me a scientific paper i can read on this subject?

+Mondestrasz Sure. Semi-technical: try Seth Lloyd's paper Quantum Coherence in Biological Systems (just type into Google). Popular level (clear and hugely interesting on many levels): Al-Khalili and McFadden's Life on the Edge (just out in paperback).

***** Thank you for the suggestions friend

Collapse does not require an "observer". This is a long standing misconception that has since been falsified. Collapse only requires a thermodynamically irreversible interaction with a classical environment. i.e. information exchange with an outside particle or field.

first plant was like 500 million years ago and life began 4.5 billion years ago... and theres trillions of trillions of bacterias and stuff competing in a freaking battle royale so i think yea its pretty likely this kinda stuff comes around

how many errors can you do in 3,8 billion years?

@@kenivia9476 you just guessing and the right answer you just don't know, this only can be a work of engineer

3.5 billion years of trial and error from LUCA.

​@@kamel3d Who the fuck said that evolution is contrary to the existence of a god? 🤔 Only people who have a strict literalist interpretation of mans fables and shit for understanding when it comes to earth sciences.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Jint5kjoy6I.html

If free will is based on random events how is this free will any more 'free' than deterministic events?

Determinism means we can predict all the outcomes given all present data of the universe. That is according to determinism, what you just wrote in this comment section was already predetermined millions of years ago. Nothing has less freeness than determinism. Since this is not how the universe works, your present actions are not predetermined in the past. This leads to the use of probabilistic (random) models like Schrodinger's equation to try to predict the outcome probabilistically: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Jint5kjoy6I.html

@@Novak2611 That still doesn't produce free will, nor is it proven.

@Swan can you explain why? Do you think you don't have free will

I saw another video about 5 years ago that did this. They said the transfer was instant, but they did not mention quantum entanglement. (As far as I remember.) I am looking for that one now. It's hard to find.

I think you missed the point. What is special here is not the quantum nature of nature. What is special here is the quantum trick that allows keeping quantum coherence. We humans succeeded in keeping quantum coherence in labs with sofisticated tools and near absolute zero temperature. On the other hand, a simple leaf can do it in room temperature using its complex organised molecules.

@@Novak2611 yes. Because we are trying to control nature.....

the same Designer that gave Homo sapiens back problems because our spine is not yet that good for bipedal posture? THAT deisgner? Or the one that made the larygeal nerve in Giraffe turn around the aortic arch for no reason?

The imperfections developed later. The initial designs were perfect. If not, everything would have died off long before it had a chance to evolve. The idea that these are not all ingeniously designed technology is ludicrous.

@James Black First off, please excuse me if I offended anyone by my word choice. I just get a little impatient sometimes because some evolutionists seem to have an agenda to stamp out belief in creation, force evolution gratuitously into conversations, and treat as inferior anyone who questions evolution, nevermind believes in creation or intelligent design. And some are not truly open-minded or scientific or reasonable, and have more of a dogmatic, religious fervor. But I appreciate your respectful, sincere reply. Here’s a possible explanation. Some background. Mutations and evolution and origin of life are separate things. I believe it’s clear that mutations happen, and the fact that mutations, which are often harmful, have not destroyed life, means life was designed to accomodate or even cause mutations. However, they have limited scope. Changing color or size or possibly more significant mutations is not the same as developing wings or eyes or changing species. They are adaptations within species. There is even built in error correction to reverse mutations. The fact that adaptations happen within species does not show evolution to other species, but it actually highlights the ingenious design of genetics. In fact, significant changes such as developing eyes or wings would be too far fetched to be feasible at all. They would have to be fully developed and functional to be of any benefit. Otherwise they would be only a liability, making survival harder for the recipient. Not only that, any such change would also require a very complex set of instructions for use to be programmed into the brain (a separate body part), as well as nerve connections between, and circulatory system integration, etc. Quite preposterous. If the most skilled surgeons attached wings to a pig, would it make it better able to survive, or even able to fly? That would require the ability to program its brain how and when to use them, and construct and connect fully functioning nerves and veins and arteries, etc. And if they did all this, it would prove that it could be done by an intelligent mind, not through random chance or undirected processes. Extending this, the systems of the body are so dependent on other systems and the organs on other organs, they all had to be fully developed and functioning and integrated at the same time to be of any use and to survive. What good is a heart, or veins, or blood, or kidneys, or bones, or nerves, or a brain, or digestive system, without all the rest? Bones are not just a support frame, they manufacture the red blood cells used by the heart and veins and all organs. What can be removed? Maybe the appendix, which scientists used to assume was a vestige of evolution, which is still widely believed by the masses, but they have since figured out is a repository for beneficial microorganisms in the digestive system, and we may start to realize the harm caused by removing it. Even the microbiome we are just starting to understand. Its role in digestion, immunity, hormones, etc. We used to think all “germs” were bad. The interdependence not only of organs within a body, but of separate microorganisms, and really other species in the environment. Eg pollinators to help propagate food plants. And since higher life forms require the assistance of single cell life forms, and some are harmful pathogens which existed before higher life forms, these had to have fully functioning immune systems right from the get go, or else the first one would have quickly died from being consumed by fungus and bacteria before it had a chance to reproduce. So many things would have to be in place, the existence of higher life forms requires the simultaneous existance of many complete, distinct species, with both sexes present, with all their parts and full knowledge and ability to use all their parts, right from the beginning. More directly to the points raised in the previous comments... Humans were given a number of unique abilities not shared by other physical beings (animals), among them a sense of justice, right and wrong, conscience, humor, a deeper ability to love and feel other emotions, a much higher level of intelligence, wisdom, ability to explore, delve, question, figure things out, learn, gain insight, develop technology, create, express ourselves as different individuals, enjoy music, art, dance, games, colors, flavors, types of food, and devise and enjoy all manner of endeavors, and a desire for endless enjoyable life. We see some of these traits to a much more limited degree in animals, and others not at all. Evolution theory cannot explain how humans have all these traits. We are very different, not even close to any primate. And a key trait of humans... free will, the ability to make decisions that go against conscience, instinct, and better judgment, even self harming ones. Traits like these are why humans alone are said to be made in God’s image. They are gifts to enable us to enjoy life to the fullest extent. Life that was originally intended never to end, again unlike the animals. Another strictly human trait: spirituality, desire to connect with and have an understanding of with God. These teach us that the creator not only exists but is loving and kind and wants us to be happy and to know him. The free will was misused by the first humans to make an unwise, self harming decision against their conscience to corrupt themselves, making themselves flawed, imperfect, “sinful”, morally as well as physically and spiritually. This inherently changed them, before they had children, so their eventual descendants had these same traits, genetically passed down. Ever since, humans have continued to decline, and either directly cause, or do things that indirectly cause, harm and corruption to the environment and animal life. For example, the great deluge is completely written off and ignored by science. As we know, when a conclusion is assumed, we skew the facts to support our assumption. So science is getting some things wrong due to those oversights. It’s missing out on certain insights, like learning what effects may have been caused by the flood. If the atmosphere has been different ever since, eg missing a water canopy that previously existed on some level of the atmosphere, what effects might that have caused for the last few thousand years? Increased solar radiation without that planetary shield/filter? Climate change? Cosmic rays are believed to cause mutations. They also create carbon-14, which is used in carbon dating. Yet what if the cosmic radiation level was not constant as believed, but had suddenly increased at some point. Could that make life prior to the increase appear to be much older than it is? And also accelerate the rate of mutations, including harmful mutations, perhaps to a rate faster than life was designed to accomodate or correct? In other words, animal life becoming less fit and able to survive rather than more? Certainly the human race and its technology has developed to a point where it is damaging the environment with pollution and causing climate change which is making animals less able to survive, causing mass extinctions in fact. Can you look at a simple stone wall or a simple vertical stack of rocks in the forest, and not immediately recognize it as the work of an intelligent mind? If I said that the Great Wall or Pyramid just happened by chance from rocks shifting during earthquakes, would you ever give that serious consideration? How about a house? Yet the simplest forms of life, the simplest cells, are so much more complex, more on the order of a city, with security, sanitation, communications, transportation, etc. Even elements of life such as proteins with their folding are too complex to come about without being designed by an extremely high intelligence. Just think of the pride highly intelligent scientists feel when they succeed in understanding these things a little more. Humans are learning from and building upon and imitating what they find around them, but imagine the mind required to originate these things. Randomness? Think of something you created or made or accomplished, something you were proud of. Maybe a garden you planted or art you created. What if I took away credit from you, told people that it just happened randomly, you were not involved, and you don’t even exist. How would I sound? Perhaps foolish, hateful, not credible. How would you feel about it? Perhaps insulted or hurt, and that I am an enemy that you do not like. What if you made a gift for a friend and then your friend ignored that fact. How would you feel? Perhaps hurt or unloved? Would you view your friend as grateful and appreciative and would you want to give him more gifts? If we deny the gifts and very existence of a benevolent, intelligent designer and creator, how might that make him feel, and how might he view us? What kind of friends or people would we be?

@@Robbyrool 1. Cells are complex. This does not mean that they are cities. 2. Origin of life as best explained by science so far is abiogenesis. Organic molecules that were formed due to stars doing star stuff made their way to Earth and reacted in little ways until they became autocatalysts- chemicals that make themselves. From there it's a few million years until DNA and cells arise. Don't ask me how much, I'm no time Traveller. DNA doesn't really stay together like bones do.

your designer is retarded. Photosynthesis is incredibly inefficient and college biology students could design a better pathway.

oogee boogee

Tell me you don't understand evolutionary biology without telling me you don't understand evolutionary biology.

@@whatabouttheearth The typical reasoning that blocks the advancement of science. So are you sure about how DNA works? All the mechanisms that lead to mutations? Explain it to the world then, because maybe you're the only one who knows!

Great post up until the last bit. They may have been put here by other beings. Or genetically engineered by other beings. Or .. there are other possibilities.

it dosen´t if you study the subject... and is not coincidence, is trial and error.

😂😂😂 Said no biologist ever

Prime Gaming that's me

@Eddie Murray Greetings Bro.

Even looking at it through that lens there is nothing that indicates any 'one' creator, but it does beg very interesting teleological questions about whether or not evolution works by completely random mutation/trials or if there is another force of some kind at work that steers/pulls things towards a certain path. I was just wondering yesterday if there has been a study that attempts to examine the potential time required for something to evolve through pure random mutation. Nature builds on what works, adapting, so there is acceleration in some areas but when you start looking at the vast complexity (and often elegance) of biological systems etc (even just proteins) and it does beg the question as to whether or not trial and error was a dominant force in evolution.

Æ : well I respectfully disagree sir, I see mountains of evidence that demands that exact conclusion, and I love science. For instance all the laws of physics that act in perfect harmony with one another, same laws throughout the known universe. Another example is one that evolutionists claim as evidence in the behalf of their ideas, and that is the similarities between species. Is it because everything climbed up the same bank or is it because they have a common creator? The answer to me is obvious my friend.

To adapt a quote from Einstein : ‘science without spirituality is lame, spirituality without science is blind’. I think you might find it informative to listen to Dr Rupert Sheldrake's work on Science and Spiritual Practices - ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-5qLopTuP_PM.html As for similarities between species, that is fairly well accounted for by environmental conditions and the concept of 'fitness', path of least resistance etc. I don't see any huge requirement for an interventionist creator there.. but again, the question of the role and origin of creativity in the universe is a good one.

Æ I really appreciate your level of reasonableness and lack of malice. But I do have to say that I am very leery of any spiritual influence that I expose myself to. I am fully aware that the blind are leading the blind. A trap that has misled an entire system of things has been to present opposing sides...both wrong. Religion is presented as ridiculous, therefore many turn away from it or give up and they are caught in that trap. Some see clear evidence of a god, and so they turn to what is in reality, false religion, and are trapped. Very sad indeed.

Sheldrake is both a scientist and a christian, and sees them as harmonious rather than contradictory. I have had the pleasure of speaking with him several times and have the utmost respect for him as an experimental scientist and thinker. If you like science, religion or both then you'd probably enjoy many of the things he has to say. Up to you.

Did ya' get what you wanted yet?

A man stands on top of tower ready to jump but then a physicist from ground says " Dont jump you have so much POTENTIAL "

the design is obvious? How would a non designed biological mechanism be? That is just an argument from ignorance....

The Designer is none other than the Creator. "In the beginning God" Genesis 1:1

Zouksesnanet The Bible is not evidence

Cousin answer this: why would a God create self-replicating machines? surely a divine being would create ethereal creatures whose existence was not dependant on a star

FreshOJPros fight me😂

CJA OUTDOORS come at me

FreshOJPros yeah lets go, lunch time u and me

CJA OUTDOORS lets fight

CJA OUTDOORS Do you think you're funny m8?

lol......sure and fire breathing dragons!

But so many will never see it. I strongly suspect that God is handling every single cellular process by hand.

You first need to prove the existence of a god before making any claims about its causal role in nature mate....

You're looking at the proof. You're seeing things nobody else through all of history could ever imagine. I'm a student programmer and I can tell you with absolute certainty All of these nano machines and the DNA that 'codes' and 'programs' them is absolutely a programming language. A program cannot write itself anymore than a single word can write itself on a blank page, let alone have a best seller write itself. And those things are nothing compared to the layers upon layers of incalculable complexity you see here. Information and agency of that information cannot create itself. It must come from someone that knows all of it inside and out. Just like a book must come from people that turned wood into paper, made the ink, and a writer with a grasp on a language and alphabet and how a story works.

You are a student programmer...and you need to study hard and get rid of your magical language. DNA contains chemical markers mate. The code is an observer relative term, we define DNA as code. You will need to educate your self on biology, geochemistry and biochemistry. You will also need a course on Philosophy of Science. It will help you distinguish science from nonsense. Your analogies are IRRELEVANT to nature's mechanism. Again the causal role of an agent needs to be verified...not assumed just because we imagine similarities with human actions.