

A new theoretical model suggests quantum entanglement helps hold DNA together - jonbaer
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/419590/quantum-entanglement-holds-dna-together-say-physicists/

======
shoyer
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
> 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
The 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
Yes, 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
that 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.

~~~
cma
He said most. Look at what the Anton CPU can do with just force fields and
spring modeled bonds. They have found some cases where quantum matters, buy
not all.

~~~
dnautics
electron transfer is a basic concept in metabolism, my specific application
notwithstanding.

------
mbq
I hate when people talk about entanglement as some separate phenomenon, while
it is actually an effect of considering non-local QM in local approximation --
such post should be titled "considering entanglement improves DNA model
accuracy" which is catchy adequately to the true value of the paper. This way
it is like calling a sports article "Goalkeeper foiled by... angular
momentum!".

------
dkural
A more accurate title would be "We've found parameters for our simulation that
gives a role to room-temperature entanglement a shot at being somewhat
relevant to base pairing", by and large ignoring all that chromatin structure
that also holds DNA together as well (
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatin](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatin)
)

~~~
jjoonathan
Only eukaryotes have chromatin. Besides, even eukaryotic DNA doesn't spend all
its time as chromatin. Base pairing is still important, especially during
replication and translation.

~~~
dkural
Yes, fully agreed. Base-pairing as a regular chemical process is vital.

------
lukeqsee
This is probably a naïve question, but what examples exist of room-temperature
entanglement naturally occurring? In other words, are we dealing with an
entirely new phenomena or is this a "routine" phenomena being postulated to be
found in a really cool place?

~~~
XorNot
It's worth noting that entanglement happens pretty much all the time, all
around you. Long-lived entanglement is a lab phenomenon though - it's only
significant when we arrange the system so we actually preserve it for a
usefully long amount of time.

~~~
Xcelerate
Yes, this is something I wish was elaborated upon more. Entanglement isn't
some strange process that rarely occurs. It occurs with all particles of
matter at once due to the fact that the wavefunction that describes a system
is a function of all particles. It just so happens that if some portions of
matter are well isolated from another portion, then you can approximate the
overall wavefunction by writing it as the product of two independent
wavefunctions of two subsystems.

When there are noticeable effects that deviate from this approximation, that's
what most articles are referring to as "entanglement".

------
josephagoss
If quantum mechanics is truly random at that level, and these mechanics affect
biological processes, would that mean we do not live in a deterministic
universe?

So if we restarted the universe from the exact starting conditions (imagine
this can be done for sake of my point) then does this mean the universe would
be different every single time?

~~~
Xcelerate
> So if we restarted the universe from the exact starting conditions (imagine
> this can be done for sake of my point) then does this mean the universe
> would be different every single time?

Assuming there's such a thing as a universal wavefunction (which seems to be
kind of debated), then yes, that is what quantum mechanics predicts at least.

------
anusinha
My understanding is that their work is more like "coupling" than
"entanglement" (as the media describes entanglement). From the abstract of
their arXiv article, it sounds like what they're looking at is the motion of
the base pairs together. This is certainly pretty cool, but it's not quite the
same as some of the other results on quantum entanglement where two particles
are entangled and by observing one, you can infer the other, etc etc.

------
epistasis
>There was a time, not so long ago, when biologists swore black and blue that
quantum mechanics could play no role in the hot, wet systems of life.

When was this? Last February 31st? I don't recall any biologists discounting
the last Nobel prize in Chemistry (which was biology and classical/quntum
physics related as well).

~~~
dnautics
the only example i can think of is the ongoing debate about whether or not a
proton can undergo quantum mechanical tunneling in enzymes, which has been on
and off debated for about 30 or 40 years. That electrons undergo quantum
mechanical tunnelling in enzymes, though, has been uncontroversial for just as
long, so it would be tough to say that biologists have rejected 'quantum
mechanics' en banc.

~~~
selimthegrim
There has been an on and off big deal about the so called Fenna-Matthews-Olson
complex. Some people were big proponents of quantum coherence playing a role
in its photosynthetic energy transfer mechanism (based on extrapolating from
close to 0 K measurements, mind!)

Others ([http://condensedconcepts.blogspot.com/2012/07/details-do-
mat...](http://condensedconcepts.blogspot.com/2012/07/details-do-matter-in-
photosynthesis.html)) cast some doubt.

------
kr4
Ok, I'm vary far from expert in QM or physics for that matter and talking out
of ass here. But here's my thought: Can we look at quantum entanglement as a
result from a process that occurs between two objects in a different dimension
free from dimension of spacetime. Currently we define entanglement as two
objects effectively sharing the same existence, no matter how far apart they
might be. But "far" (or distance) applies to the dimension of space which is
limited by current known laws of relativity (speed of light) that's why
entanglement sounds bazarre and spooky.

~~~
millstone
You'd probably enjoy the wiki article on Implicate and Explicate Order:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_and_explicate_order](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_and_explicate_order)
.

------
aufreak3
I wonder how many more decades it will take until a "technology" magazine
ceases to put "weird" in front of quantum mechanics.

------
crusso
_There was a time, not so long ago, when biologists swore black and blue that
quantum mechanics could play no role in the hot, wet systems of life_

Seems an odd thing to declare. Quantum mechanics is part of reality. Why would
evolving things not eventually mutate to utilize aspects of reality --
especially those that operate at the atomic level?

