The application of quantum mechanics to biology in explaining phenomena such as the high efficiency of photosynthesis.
Last edited:
Done!A new forum rule requires that videos are accompanied by a brief summary of the contents.
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...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...
The two contending theories are quantum coherence and molecular vibrations where the vibration energy levels are quantized.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.
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.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?
You apply bias when you label one mainstream and one not. It's like saying Bohr is wrong and Einstein is right.
In this case you can argue photosynthesis is the observation.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?