@vzn you know, I read an article on work McFadden's work in qunatum biology.. it was cool.. it explained how a violation of darwinian theory was caused by quantum superposition...
@vzn: It's funny how that isn't even his latest paper on arXiv
@ThomasKlimpel: What's the problem with QM in the first place? I feel it's only difficult if you fix your philosophical postition from the start, or if that position is too restrictive. Well, maybe I only think so because I'm a pragmatic person, in some weird way. I'd just learn and stop trying to convincing people. btw.: It's clear that every person in the world doesn't know enough math.
@NikolajK For me, the initial problem with QM was that I could only learn it properly from a good teacher, or from good introductory texts. And the second problem was that I wasn't forced to learn it, because I could take the exams in other physics courses instead.
When I finally had to learn QM for professional reasons, I already had many years of practical experience in computational optics in the presence of partial coherence on my side. So it makes perfect sense for me to translate QM concepts into the context of optics, and see what they mean there.
A second bonus on my side was that quantum computing has lead to the availability of excellent German textbooks introducing QM from a more conceptual point of view.
There is also a philosophical side, which is a total different story. A real number can contain an infinite amount of information, but nature probably doesn't contain an infinite amount of information in a finite volume. So nature has to use QM (or something similar) to blur details enough such they no longer contain an infinite amount of information.
