4 ms·
I recently finished my PhD on quantum effects in biology (my focus was on photosynthesis). This article and the many others like it are full of poorly substanti
by shoyer 13y ago
I recently finished my PhD on quantum effects in biology (my focus was on photosynthesis). This article and the many others like it are full of poorly substantiated hype.
Yes, quantum mechanics is important to some biological processes. But (1) many physicists in this field have blatantly ignored vital chemical and biological details when constructing their models and (2) it's not entirely clear who should be "surprised" by this sort of quantum entanglement, which is not that different from standard notions of chemical bonds.
Also note that this news piece is actually from 2010, and the preprint article it refers to (http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.4053 http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.4053) was never published in a peer-reviewed journal -- presumably because the authors couldn't get it past peer review.
- spacehome 13y ago> Yes, quantum mechanics is important to some biological processes. I'm not quite sure how to parse this statement. Wouldn't quantum mechanics underlie all biological processes?
- carbocation 13y agoThe point is that, while quantum rules sit at the bottom of most macroscopic objects, quantum rules aren't important for most objects on an everyday basis. Similarly, if entanglement is important for explaining the behavior of DNA, that would be novel factual information.
- shoyer 13y agoYes, exactly. You don't need to understand quantum mechanics to understand most biological processes (within the limits of our current knowledge). Biologists don't need to learn quantum mechanics.
- dnautics 13y agothat is not true at all. I'm engineering a better hydrogenase and had to explain marcus theory to the biology profs (i.e. all of them, since I work at a biology institute). Totally hopeless, because they didn't know quantum. Knowing quantum from chemistry, I taught the basic principles to myself in a few minutes.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- dnautics 13y agoit would have been more accurate for them to have said "nonclassical quantum mechanics".
- spacehome 13y agoAtoms aren't stable in a classical universe.
- ErsatzVerkehr 13y agothat's a nonsense phrase.
- spacehome 13y agoSaying "quantum rules aren't important for most objects" just isn't true. I understand what you're trying to say -- that we mostly use imprecise metaphors in place of what's really going on -- but that's a statement about our understanding, not reality.
- ErsatzVerkehr 13y agoFor example, solids are "solid" largely because of the Pauli exclusion principle, which says that two fermions (such as electronics) can't occupy the same state at the same time. These effects are so familiar, and we explain them with simple words like "solid," that we forget that quantum mechanics makes it work. Without quantum mechanics, we'd fall through the floor.
- derefr 13y agoHow about "the higher-level abstractions of biochemistry encapsulate quantum-mechanical effects pretty well, and rarely leak"?
- simonh 13y agoThat's hitting the nail on the head that is - right there. But telling a pedant what they do or don't need to be pedantic about is a losing game Per a comment down thread that without quantum effects we'd all fall through the floor. Yes. But I don't need to solve Shroedinger's equation every time I go for a walk. In the same way, Biologists don't always have to take into account quantum mechanical effects, but the times that they do are very interesting and worth hearing about.
- carbocation 13y agoI briefly scanned the PDF looking for "base stacking" because this seemed so analogous. The only mention of the phrase was in the title of a reference. It would have been nice for them to address this.