Talk:Quantum biology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics. |
|
Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|
Was originally a rather bizarre essay---I looked at the deleted version,--much original content lost during the removal of the absurdities. Trying to clean up some of the rest, but essentially might be better to start over. 22:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
The references from the earlier essay were similarly useless--I looked at the deleted version, but they were not worth rescuing. DGG (talk) 22:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Technically, it was originally a very short article, a layman's definition, and it remained that way for a long time. Only recently was the "essay" added. Those of you with powers to make things disappear should restore the talk-page templates that were here. Thanks. –Outriggr § 22:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
- Aye, I did a partial restore, since there didn't seem much point to restoring the patent nonsense that got it deleted. I've restored the templates, but removed the medicine one as that seems to have been added after the bizarre essay version replaced Outriggr's sensible page. Adam Cuerden talk 22:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Studies
The sources cited state clearly what is cited, which is fully correct. If there are other sources providing classical explanation to that phenomena, please cite the sources and pages otherwise be so kind as to avoid removing correctly cited content arbitrarily ☤'ProfBrumby 19:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I support the version that Moresci protected. Cope's article is an old theoretical discussion--it could stay in, but isnt all that relevant to the current state of research. Ho is also out of date and general, and again could stay in, but is not a source for anything specific. The KSU review page is I think acceptable, though it isnt strictly published; its acceptable therefore as an external reference.
- However, Pitkanen, Matti (2006). Topological Geometrodynamics. Luniver Press, pp 9, 13, 129, 152-153, 377-378. ISBN 978-095511708 is the very essence of unreliability. Matti Pitkanen (physicist) was deleted back in 04 and 06, but would be deleted again today.
However, Adam, your edit summaries are not models of tact. DGG (talk) 03:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. But I was a bit under stress that day. Adam Cuerden talk 13:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Question
Is the Quantum biology that people are attacking as bunk the same QB that I find articles on in Science Daily and the Nature website? ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- No, and that's the problem - it's an actual, respected scientific field, but this article was instead focusing on fringe theories and alternative medicine speculation about quantum mechanics Adam Cuerden talk 13:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
