Quantum Biology

[sjastro]

The application of quantum mechanics to biology in explaining phenomena such as the high efficiency of photosynthesis.

 

[Ophiolite]

A new forum rule requires that videos are accompanied by a brief summary of the contents.

 

[sjastro]

A new forum rule requires that videos are accompanied by a brief summary of the contents.

Done!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The application of quantum mechanics to biology in explaining phenomena such as the high efficiency of photosynthesis.

As I understand it, this is just one of a number of nanoscale 'tweaks' that appear to take advantage of quantum effects; unexpected but, on reflection, not that surprising. It's had around 10 years of media attention, but I think the idea that it happens isn't controversial; there's controversy about some of the particular contexts its claimed to apply in, but that's par for the course for a fairly young field of study...

 

[sjastro]

As I understand it, this is just one of a number of nanoscale 'tweaks' that appear to take advantage of quantum effects; unexpected but, on reflection, not that surprising. It's had around 10 years of media attention, but I think the idea that it happens isn't controversial; there's controversy about some of the particular contexts its claimed to apply in, but that's par for the course for a fairly young field of study...

In fact the "tweaks" might involve maximising Raman scattering with the transfer of vibrational energy between molecules scattered by photons.
While Raman scattering is quantum mechanical in the sense the molecular energy vibration levels are quantized it doesn't involve the approach involving energy transfer via a quantum coherent state.
The jury is still out on the mechanism.
Is photosynthesis quantum-ish? – Physics World

 

[usexpat97]

I'm not really getting what this non-mainstream thing is about the forum subtopics. Of course organic molecules and certain macroscopic subcellular structures can behave as quantum wave functions. Yesterday's non-mainstream is tomorrow's mainstream, so it seems like you have to constantly be moving threads back-and-forth as science advances, at a breakneck pace.

Quantum modelling of the photosynthesis process is being developed and researched, today. I'm not even aware of anyone saying it's wrong. I mean the monetary payoff for private enterprise is right there: the result is vastly improved efficiency of photovoltaic cells.

 

[sjastro]

I'm not really getting what this non-mainstream thing is about the forum subtopics. Of course organic molecules and certain macroscopic subcellular structures can behave as quantum wave functions. Yesterday's non-mainstream is tomorrow's mainstream, so it seems like you have to constantly be moving threads back-and-forth as science advances, at a breakneck pace.

Quantum modelling of the photosynthesis process is being developed and researched, today. I'm not even aware of anyone saying it's wrong. I mean the monetary payoff for private enterprise is right there: the result is vastly improved efficiency of photovoltaic cells.

The two contending theories are quantum coherence and molecular vibrations where the vibration energy levels are quantized.
While both are examples of quantum mechanics the second scenario from a physics perspective simply requires the Schrodinger equation be solved for a quantum harmonic oscillator which does not require quantum coherence.
It is non mainstream because there is not even scientific consensus on the mechanism.

 

[usexpat97]

You apply bias when you label one mainstream and one not. It's like saying Bohr is wrong and Einstein is right.

The oddity I find in the case of coherence is that you are dealing with a biological organism. So, then, what exactly does it mean to "observe" it? Supposedly you lose coherence the instant it is observed, yet...how could it ever NOT be observed when the quantum phenomenon is none other than the organism itself?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You apply bias when you label one mainstream and one not. It's like saying Bohr is wrong and Einstein is right.

The oddity I find in the case of coherence is that you are dealing with a biological organism. So, then, what exactly does it mean to "observe" it? Supposedly you lose coherence the instant it is observed, yet...how could it ever NOT be observed when the quantum phenomenon is none other than the organism itself?

An observation in QM is basically when a quantum system (e.g. particle) interacts with another system in a superposition, and enters the environment; so in a biological organism, which is far from being a vacuum, such 'observations' happen continually. Even at the nanoscale, it would take special circumstances for such quantum states to persist; the suggestion is that evolution has found a few of those circumstances.

 

[sjastro]

You apply bias when you label one mainstream and one not. It's like saying Bohr is wrong and Einstein is right.

History has shown mainstream to be wrong on many occasions.
It is based on consensus; whether it is right or wrong is a separate issue.
Most of mainstream theories in physics up to the early 20th century was based on classical physics which by today's standards is either wrong or is reduced to a first order approximation for theories such as General Relativity.
An example which is relevant to this thread is the "UV Catastrophe" of the early 20th century.

The oddity I find in the case of coherence is that you are dealing with a biological organism. So, then, what exactly does it mean to "observe" it? Supposedly you lose coherence the instant it is observed, yet...how could it ever NOT be observed when the quantum phenomenon is none other than the organism itself?

In this case you can argue photosynthesis is the observation.
How it got there could be via quantum coherence.