calculating probable wisdom exploring calibrated forecasts assembling intelligent wisdom generating probable insights calculating critical estimations mapping the future generating calibrated forecasts computing intelligent wisdom predicting intelligent understanding calculating calibrated estimations calculating intelligent contingencies exploring accurate understanding mapping quantitative insights computing calibrated futures

Question

Metaculus Help: Spread the word

If you like Metaculus, tell your friends! Share this question via Facebook, Twitter, or Reddit.

Seeing single photons: more research to come?

The question of whether large-scale quantum effects could be in operation in the brain is quite controversial (see for example this argument that decoherence in the brain is ultra fast and this recent question about slower decoherence). Yet it's clear that quantum mechanics operates in the brain, and that many biological processes may well use quantum effects on the small scale in ways that can effect much larger scales.

As a fascinating example, it has long been known that the human eye/brain system can detect just a few photons of light, and a recent study has quantified this at an unprecedented level. The experimenting team tested the human eye's sensitivity using technology developed in quantum optics and quantum information studies. In conjuncture with psychophysics protocol, they found that the human eyes have the ability to detect the presence of individual photons with a high success rate. The team performed over 30,000 trials with result published in Nature Communications on July 19, 2016.

With such a high-confidence trial, scientists anticipate further testing on humans' ability to directly observe quantum properties via the applied techniques used in the experiment. The findings also raise the question of how biological systems are enabled to attain such sensitivity.

Will this first evidence demonstrating direct perception of a single photon by the human eyes initiate more interest to perform similar testing in the near future?

We will use the number of citations of the paper published in Nature Communications as a measurement. As of quesion open, the paper has been cited by 5 according to Google Scholar. For this question to resolve as positive, Google Scholar must report 10 or more citations by Sept 1, 2017.

{{qctrl.predictionString()}}

Metaculus help: Predicting

Predictions are the heart of Metaculus. Predicting is how you contribute to the wisdom of the crowd, and how you earn points and build up your personal Metaculus track record.

The basics of predicting are very simple: move the slider to best match the likelihood of the outcome, and click predict. You can predict as often as you want, and you're encouraged to change your mind when new information becomes available. With tachyons you'll even be able to go back in time and backdate your prediction to maximize your points.

The displayed score is split into current points and total points. Current points show how much your prediction is worth now, whereas total points show the combined worth of all of your predictions over the lifetime of the question. The scoring details are available on the FAQ.

Note: this question resolved before its original close time. All of your predictions came after the resolution, so you did not gain (or lose) any points for it.

Note: this question resolved before its original close time. You earned points up until the question resolution, but not afterwards.

This question is not yet open for predictions.

Thanks for predicting!

Your prediction has been recorded anonymously.

Want to track your predictions, earn points, and hone your forecasting skills? Create an account today!

Track your predictions
Continue exploring the site

Community Stats

Metaculus help: Community Stats

Use the community stats to get a better sense of the community consensus (or lack thereof) for this question. Sometimes people have wildly different ideas about the likely outcomes, and sometimes people are in close agreement. There are even times when the community seems very certain of uncertainty, like when everyone agrees that event is only 50% likely to happen.

When you make a prediction, check the community stats to see where you land. If your prediction is an outlier, might there be something you're overlooking that others have seen? Or do you have special insight that others are lacking? Either way, it might be a good idea to join the discussion in the comments.