
Organisms might be quantum machines - mouzogu
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160715-organisms-might-be-quantum-machines
======
danbruc
Tl;dr Biology is applied chemistry, chemistry is applied quantum physics and
in some cases chemistry is a leaky abstraction and does not perfectly explain
what is going on in organisms. Three examples - photosynthesis being more
efficient than expected, birds sensing Earth's magnetic field by an unknown
mechanism and a lack of understanding how olfaction works in detail - are
presented but besides that there are no new revolutionary ideas in the
article.

~~~
fizixer
> ... chemistry is a leaky abstraction ...

Well I second you on that. Even stronger:

All of (theoretical) science is a leaky abstraction. When an area is new,
people are doing the spherical-cow-approximation willy nilly. After it gets
established, corner cases start to surface.

Incidentally, theoretical physicists are the masters of creating spherical-
cow-approximations and leaky-abstractions. They're always going for the next
big unexplored territory. E.g., once QM got established as a theory, they
moved on to high-energy, while there is about 1000x more work to be done
picking up the pieces of QM in the areas of solid-state-physics and molecular-
chemistry. (largely speaking that is; not everyone is like that).

~~~
jp3141
relevant xkcd [https://www.xkcd.com/435/](https://www.xkcd.com/435/)

~~~
Noseshine
Math is a tool. It's orthogonal and used by all, not hierarchical above (or
below) all of them..

[http://euclid.trentu.ca/math/sb/misc/mathsci.html](http://euclid.trentu.ca/math/sb/misc/mathsci.html)

    
    
        > The natural sciences investigate the physical universe but mathematics does not,
        > so mathematics is not really a natural science. This leaves open the subtler
        > question of whether mathematics is essentially similar in method to the natural
        > sciences in spite of the difference in subject matter. I do not think it is.
    

I'm not even including that famous Einstein quote about math.

Example: When you are doing math in economics you are not doing something that
is even more foundational than physics.

~~~
rpwverheij
what if the nature of the physical universe has no other reason to be as it is
other than mathematical consequences of harmonies, resonances, balances, etc?
In other words: if all that exists follows mathematical law, doesnt that make
math part of the existential?

~~~
Noseshine

        > if all that exists follows mathematical law
    

As a thought experiment, try the opposite direction: Math mirrors reality, not
reality mirrors math. I don't see electrons solving quantum equations -
equations _describe_ an electron. The cannonball follows a trajectory that we
can describe using math - but it doesn't _do_ math. Sure, you can say that it
does, implicitly, but IMHO that's stretching it a bit, I don't see the value
in such a metaphor.

From a certain level such questions become completely arbitrary and useless:
Remember, it's _your brain_ that interprets everything and you can just say
whatever you want when there are no consequences.

~~~
runT1ME
> As a thought experiment, try the opposite direction: Math mirrors reality,
> not reality mirrors math.

If this was true, it would severely limit the usefulness of math. We'd see our
predictability break down much sooner than we do actually. Read up on it here:

[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mathphil-
indis/](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mathphil-indis/)

~~~
Noseshine
Why do you interpret my post as an absolute?

[http://dilbert.com/strip/2015-06-07](http://dilbert.com/strip/2015-06-07)

I said - and I have no idea why I have to paraphrase my one sentence - to try
a thought experiment, to see what happens when you reverse the direction.

Not to mention that you didn't really say anything? I have no idea what your
point even is.

------
djsumdog
In Kim Stanley Robinson's fictional series on Mars (Red, Blue, Green Mars),
researches discover that memory is actually based on quantum physics.

It's a really good series I highly recommend, and it's won awards because
Robinson put a lot of research into make the book believable. The descriptions
and time scales used in the book make it very accessible to engineers while
also containing incredible character development.

Anyway, memory could be very well related to the quantum world. There's a lot
we do not understand about the brain, and what we do know raises a bunch of
questions about how does our brain store information when it seems to have
such limited potential capacity?

~~~
ekianjo
We dont have a good understanding of the brain because our techniques of
observation are very limited. No need to call for quantum physics at this
stage.

------
mixedmath
Only somewhat related: I'm currently reading Anathem by Neal Stephenson. I'm
nearing the end of the book, and the concept that human brains might use
quantum processes in the decision-making process is a very important and
prevalent idea in the novel. [Although he takes some artistic license --- it
is only a novel, afterall]. So I've been thinking, at least passively, about
organisms being quantum machines quite a bit for the last week or so.

~~~
JoshTriplett
While it's certainly _possible_ that neural networks involve some non-trivial
quantum-mechanical effects, it's also much more likely that (in the context of
the brain), this notion arose from people _expecting_ the brain and
consciousness to be mysterious and inscrutable, hence "maybe consciousness is
quantum!". In the absence of a concrete theory and testable experiment, that
sentence has about as much meaning as "maybe consciousness is emergent!" or
"maybe consciousness is supernatural!".

(Here, I'm talking about vague statements like those, or sci-fi theories like
those in a Stephenson novel, as opposed to actual analysis like that of
photosynthesis in the linked article.)

~~~
erikpukinskis
Wouldn't the presence of quantum effects be the default assumption, and there
would have to be some compelling reason for their absence? It's not like
nature started from Newtonian physics. Natural selection uses whatever it can
get its sticky mitts on. Quantum effects are perfect for information
processing.

To me, it's not the inscrutability of the brain that makes this seem likely...
it's the bare knuckled win-at-all-costs no-holds-barred nature of natural
selection.

~~~
JoshTriplett
One disambiguation: _everything_ involves the presence of quantum mechanics,
insofar as Newtonian physics isn't how the universe actually works. It's not
entirely obvious where to draw the line here in calling an effect "quantum" or
"not quantum"; Newtonian physics alone doesn't explain the majority of
chemistry or electricity, for instance, and the body wouldn't function without
a wide variety of chemical and electrical reactions. The brain (and absolutely
everything else) runs on the actual physics of the universe, not on a model we
might have of it.

The default assumption would be our current model of how the brain works; any
model proposing effects (quantum or otherwise) not yet accounted for would
require an appropriate amount of additional proof. When I suggested which
seemed more likely, I was taking priors into account.

More generally, though, I wasn't referring to concrete models that make
specific claims about how the brain works; I was referring to the rather
frequently stated vague claims that use "quantum" in a way that would have no
more or less meaning with the word "magic" substituted. A specific concrete
model would be amenable to prediction and experiment.

Whether any particular such concrete model seems probable or not would depend
on what it claims. For instance, a claim that the brain depends on macroscopic
quantum effects at a far larger scale than observed elsewhere seems
improbable; a claim that the brain depends on properties of chemical or
electrical interactions that quantum mechanics explains better than other
physics models seems relatively less improbable by comparison, depending on
the details. Whether any particular claims seem probable or improbable would
depend on our current understandings of quantum mechanics, the brain,
evolutionary search processes, and so on.

------
jheriko
quite interesting, but its a bit confused... and its not exactly a revelation
that processes involving molecules or particles are best explained by quantum
effects. this is precisely where quantum physics came from - trying to explain
these things.

"The wet, warm, bustling environment of living cells is the last place you
might expect to see quantum events."

stuff like this is misleading imo. its exactly the sort of place you expect to
see quantum effects - because its in the universe and at the appropriate
scale.

~~~
flukus
>stuff like this is misleading imo. its exactly the sort of place you expect
to see quantum effects - because its in the universe and at the appropriate
scale.

Isn't this a few orders of magnitude above where you'd expect to see quantum
effects?

~~~
pdonis
_> Isn't this a few orders of magnitude above where you'd expect to see
quantum effects?_

No. Chemistry itself is fundamentally dependent on quantum effects; quantum
effects determine the structure of atoms and molecules, how they combine, and
how much energy is involved in those processes. That's true whether the
processes are taking place in living bodies or not. My reaction to this
article is basically the same as jheriko's: this is news?

~~~
flukus
I thought chemistry operated at a higher level, as in it doesn't care how or
why a atoms are structured they way they are, they just deal with the results
at a higher level of abstraction. Is this incorrect?

~~~
pdonis
_> I thought chemistry operated at a higher level_

"Chemistry" as you're using the term here is a name for a set of models made
by humans, not something in actual atoms and molecules. The atoms and
molecules don't know that they're supposed to be doing "chemistry" instead of
"quantum stuff".

When I say chemistry is fundamentally dependent on quantum effects, I mean the
things atoms and molecules actually do would be impossible without quantum
effects. The very existence of atoms depends on quantum effects; in a purely
classical world atoms would be impossible. The chemical properties of atoms--
their valences, for example--require quantum mechanics to explain.

Often in human models of chemistry, the details of how things like valences of
atoms are produced from quantum effects are left out. But that doesn't mean
quantum effects aren't being seen when we observe atoms with particular
valences, for example. It just means the details aren't explicitly present in
those models.

~~~
flukus
Thanks, I think. I really need to brush up on my understanding of chemistry.

------
flohofwoe
\- -1st century: the brain is 'magic'

\- 15th century: the brain is the creation of a divine being

\- 17th century: the brain is a clockwork

\- 20th century: the brain is an electrical computer

\- 21th century: the brain is a quantum device

\- 22th century: the brain is a ??

It's an interesting thought though, and I especially like Neil Stephenson's
idea that the brain is a quantum device that 'leaks out' into parallel
universes and uses 'brain capacity' from those overlapping universes, but it's
just that: a neat idea, and science fiction. What's different this time? :)

[edit: formatting]

~~~
Razengan
I like this best: The brain is the Universe trying to understand itself.

~~~
lagudragu
The brain, at least, plays a (somewhat local) observer role towards the
Universe. The brain trying to understand the Universe is a nice byproduct of
that role.

------
mirimir
It's well known that quantum tunneling plays crucial roles in protein
chemistry. And has been for at least ~30 years.

------
paul_milovanov
> The one saving grace is that these truly bizarre quantum

> behaviours don’t seem to have much of an impact on the

> macroscopic world as we know it, where “classical”

> physics rules the roost.

> Or, at least, that’s what scientists thought until a few years ago.

Yeah, no. You're reading this on something with a semiconductor inside. Which
you might remember from novelties like transistor radio and such.

------
gsmethells
Science works via repeatable experiments and inductive reasoning where
hypothesis are tested against observational evidence. Until they have that in-
hand, it is but interesting conjecture whose plausibility remains untested.

------
asciimo
"Life on the Edge: The Coming of Age of Quantum Biology," by Johnjoe McFadden
is a great book for history and details on these topics. The author does a
very good job explaining alien theories to curious layfolk.

------
crystaln
Why would anyone ever assume that biology obeys an entirely artificial
distinction between classical and quantum mechanics devised from human
ignorance billions of years after evolution began?

~~~
QuantumRoar
The same way you assume you can compute how a ball flies through the air
without using quantum field theory. Turns out, the ball isn't noticeably
influenced by its atomic structure. But then it turns out, some of biology
might be.

The best description is the simplest one being able to describe all related
phenomena. So unless you have a very good reason, it wouldn't be helpful to
start from the standard model of particle physics.

~~~
crystaln
That's silly. "Simple" in this context is an entirely human construct. Matter
and energy just are. They have no sense of their own complexity. If quantum
effects exist, they are equally as accessible as macro-classical effects to
biology even if not human understanding.

~~~
QuantumRoar
Of course you're right but we're talking about two different things. I was
telling you about how humans cope with complexity in science. You wouldn't get
anywhere in science if you would always start from the most detailed theory.
Instead, you try simpler models first and if they accurately describe the
phenomenon, there's no need to involve quantum mechanics (which often renders
problems almost impossible to solve).

On the other hand, if you tried the classical theories and notice that there
are things unaccounted for, then you go and look for more detailed theories to
apply to your problem. That's the normal way you do research and that's what
happened here.

------
tener
Pretty sure brains are exploiting quantum phenomenas too, we just haven't
noticed that yet. This should make replicating human brain much harder.

~~~
taneq
Why? Because computers can't exploit quantum phenomena? Phenomena such as,
say, field effects in doped silicon?

------
EddieSpeaks
The comments here seem like a slippery slope to Deepak Chopra-ish Quantum
babble. Somebody already mentioned Penrose and Hameroff.

Remain objective please.

------
acqq
Remembered me to this nice article:

"What Gives Gold that Mellow Glow?"

[https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/golden_glow/](https://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/golden_glow/)

------
deckar01
I am familiar with the concept of plants to growing towards the sun and
following the sun throughout the day. I'm curious if a similar mechanism is
occurring at the atomic level, causes new cell growth to converge onto a shape
that maximizes electron transmission.

------
nopassrecover
Interesting insight on olfaction. Quantum involvement (e.g. selective wave-
form collapse) is about the only viable possibility I can see for escaping
determinism and allowing free will (and even then we're pushing current
physics firmly into pop-sci fiction).

~~~
FeepingCreature
Quantum does not rescue free will. "Random" is "free" in the sense that a
wheel has "three degrees of freedom" when it's not attached to the axle.

~~~
nopassrecover
You're right that it doesn't necessarily rescue free will. That's why I said,
_selective_ pop-sci wave-collapse (as in some imaginary mechanism for free
will that leverages a quantum avenue).

Determinism (in most accounts) precludes free will. Therefore randomness is
necessary but not sufficient for free will. Quantum mechanics is the only
avenue we have for randomness/non-determinism, so if free will does exist,
it's going to have to involve some sort of quantum "magic".

It's certainly possible to _imagine_ consciousness based on quantum mechanics
(ala Penrose) that facilitates some level of choice by selectively collapsing
wave-forms (not just randomly collapsing them) and is still compatible with a
macro-deterministic universe.

~~~
FeepingCreature
Yeah but there seems to be some kind of belief that quantum is somehow "less
lawful" in a way that would rescue it from the conflict with determinism.
Which simply doesn't work - either it's random, in which case it's not Will,
or it's determined by something else, such as consciousness, in which case
it's not any more Free than classical physics.

(Personally, Compatibilism offers the only satisfactory way out.)

------
kingkawn
or a series of aqueducts

------
spectrum1234
I'm convinced that this is also how consciousness works yet I've never seen
this published. Consciousness can't spontaneously appear so the only way it's
possible is through quantum phenomena.

~~~
IanCal
> Consciousness can't spontaneously appear

Why?

> Consciousness can't spontaneously appear so the only way it's possible is
> through quantum phenomena.

I don't understand at all how these two statements are connected.

------
MrPatan
Everything is quantum. There is no classical.

------
saskurambo
This can open new research also on how works for example homeopathy and
acupunture?

~~~
raddar4
There does seem to be a body of anecdotal evidence pointing towards some kind
actual happening "outside what we know" for phenomenon like the "kundalini"
effect, however I don't see how the mechanism of action could be quantum in
nature. That is, I suppose, not saying much as I don't see how it could work
in any case, but I think more exploratory work does need to be done. Then
again, I don't really know and if anyone does know of any scientific studies
on kundalini phenomenon, I'd love to read about them.

~~~
flukus
> There does seem to be a body of anecdotal evidence

So no actual evidence then?

~~~
jheriko
anecdotal evidence is evidence, its just not of a good quality.

a lot of things rely on it for their justification. the best example i think i
can give in the context of wanky hipster startups would be "agile
methodologies"... despite the completely different area of concern they are
also attributed properties which are inherently difficult to measure and
perform experimentation with. i've seen very little evidence except for
anecdotal evidence to back the claims surrounding them (although certainly,
they are based on quite reasonable conclusions to reach with no evidence at
all - by using logic and "common sense" to derive from better known
quantities)

~~~
avindroth
Anecdotal evidence is evidence. But just one data point.

The bias most commit is thinking that a data point is more valuable because
you know more about it.

Just because you know the story behind it doesn't mean it's more important.

~~~
jheriko
i'd say its often too wooly to even call a single data point, but in other
cases its obviously very many.

if 1000s of people are telling the same story, thats 1000s of potential data
points... they lose value from being ill defined rather than being small in
number.

~~~
flukus
> if 1000s of people are telling the same story, thats 1000s of potential data
> points... they lose value from being ill defined rather than being small in
> number. reply

They don't exist in isolation though. If thousands are telling the same story
and there is no independent corroboration then it's more likely that one
person told a story and thousands repeated it.

~~~
jheriko
that is a good insight. thanks.

