Search FQXi

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction

Order posts by:
chronological order
most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

micheal le: on 5/3/17 at 12:08pm UTC, wrote đàn chị em bác sĩ còn tài tỉnh giấc phớt lờ lắm Trưa...

DR. EDWARD SIEGEL: on 11/6/13 at 21:22pm UTC, wrote TRENDY MUCH-HYPED "QUANTUM-BIOLOGY" IS DECIDEDLY NOT NEW AND NOT NEWS!!! ...

Platohagel: on 9/20/13 at 4:35am UTC, wrote What is Life? ...

domenico oricchio: on 6/6/13 at 13:23pm UTC, wrote I read today of the green sulfur bacteria that use infrared photosynthesis....

Tony DiCarlo: on 5/11/13 at 14:19pm UTC, wrote ...... and - if you consider the lightening strike a "dipole emission" ......

Tony DiCarlo: on 5/10/13 at 13:49pm UTC, wrote Luca, In the event of our gazing at a lightening strike, we first observe...

Luca Turin: on 5/5/13 at 9:34am UTC, wrote Thanks for your comment Tony. My feeling is that the reason smell evolved...

Tony DiCarlo: on 5/2/13 at 13:53pm UTC, wrote Bravo and two thumbs up to concluding that quantum information is a driving...

FQXi FORUM
May 28, 2017

ARTICLE: Quantum Biology: Making Waves in the Natural World [back to article]

Anonymous wrote on Feb. 21, 2013 @ 05:57 GMT
Physicist can barely understand quantum mechanics as a mechanism so how an anyone talk about a quantum-biological process.

report post as inappropriate

Luca Turin replied on Feb. 21, 2013 @ 07:20 GMT
I think every scientist must feel like that some days :-) To be fair, though, the bits of quantum physics that are currently pressed into service in biology are not necessarily the newest or the most counterintuitive. In the case of olfaction, for example, inelastic electron tunnelling spectroscopy dates back to a PRL paper by Jaklevic and Lambe in 1966, and to Marcus theory of charge-transfer reactions. Nothing very exotic to a physicist perhaps, but plenty exotic enough for biologists like myself.

report post as inappropriate

H. G. replied on Feb. 24, 2013 @ 14:09 GMT
My admiration to Carinne Piekema. Writing such a clear article! (I am just a jealous guy ;-))

About the description of the proposed quantum effects: I agree with it. But it is very difficult to argue - in a few sentences - why. It has something to do with the prescribed interactions between a local flat Higgs field and the surrounding electromagnetic field. But that is not a topic anybody is familiar with.

Henk

report post as inappropriate

Domenico Oricchio wrote on Feb. 21, 2013 @ 10:27 GMT
I want say that these my considerations are only an informal chat on an interesting topic (this is true for a blog, or forum).

If the olfaction happen for contact, then the ants have a probability to intercept a molecule proportional to

$4\pi R L \epsilon$

where \epsilon is the atomic layer surronding the antennae, so the probability of intercept a molecule is near to 0: this is a paradox.

I am thinking that the sincronization of the bloom of the flower can be happen with pheromones, and some plant signal alarm with pheromone; so can be possible that the antennae of the ants can cover great distance, but it is difficult to think a movement of the plant to search pheromones.

If it is impossible to an ant to detect a molecule for contact, then it is impossible for a bacteria (too little surface) search food with surface chemosensor with contact.

There is only a possibility: the olfaction working at a distance.

The rod cells in the eye are spectrograph (they see only a frequency band), and if exist a tunneling effect to activate the G protein-coupled receptors, then each other activation work (infrared): it is necessary only an energy transfer with the right frequency; there are infrared chemosensor in the crotalus.

Saluti

DOmenico

report post as inappropriate

Luca Turin replied on Feb. 21, 2013 @ 14:49 GMT
Ciao Domenico

I think you are forgetting swept volume in an airflow and diffusion.

Comunque grazie del commento !

L

report post as inappropriate

Tony DiCarlo wrote on May. 2, 2013 @ 13:53 GMT
Bravo and two thumbs up to concluding that quantum information is a driving variable to taste (ie., frequency -or- rates of information ARE the quantum information descriptors). This would be similar to "visions" color contrast that is also generated by locally generated "different rates" of information (the optical frequencies of the various colors). Why not continue to ALL of life's physical senses and require each sense to be generated by a "bandwidth" of information rates - ROYGBIV for vision (1.5e+15Hz 4.7e+14Hz) ; Hearing (10Hz-40kHz) ; etc ... just like the acoustic band change the flies and humans (taste/smell) have contrasted with the help of changing isotopes (known to change the acoustic bands through the extra mass added to the harmonic oscillator like behavior - this changes the rate of acoustic information).

It is exactly this realization that allows us to build the information space surrounding a living organism …. a laundry list of “information rate” bandwidths that we tap into to remain consciously connected to everything. While you provide the evidence for life recognizing the “rate difference” contrast within the acoustic bandwidth of taste information (ie., each physical sense has a “rate of information” bandwidth) ….. what exactly inside the fly and human “flipped the bit” –so to speak- to cause this distinction? One may claim a “compare and contrast” mechanism may exist within the life that accumulates information? Maybe implying a stored correlation comparator –> ie., a subconscious “go find Waldo” at work?

Best regards,

Tony

report post as inappropriate

Luca Turin replied on May. 5, 2013 @ 09:34 GMT
Thanks for your comment Tony. My feeling is that the reason smell evolved in this way is, to quote spectroscopist Foil Miller, that "The infrared (IR) spectrum is the most unique, characteristic, and widely applicable physical property known" [from book ISBN 0-471-24823-1].

report post as inappropriate

Tony DiCarlo replied on May. 10, 2013 @ 13:49 GMT
Luca,

In the event of our gazing at a lightening strike, we first observe optical information (having the least time delay to reach us from the event), then we hear the thunder (a longer delay of information vs. our seeing the lightening). We then have even more of a delay to smell the scent of ozone reaching our nose – if the wind is favorably blowing toward us. Taking each information channel (each sense giving life a quantum information degree of freedom – see, hear, smell, etc.,) we must conclude that we require all of this information to best describe the event of the lightening strike …. By our “measuring the delayed information aftermath” of the event that had already occurred.

That above may imply that while we can measure taste as a quantum vibration difference, to get the most information regarding what we taste we also have to look and listen to what we are tasting …. to set the stage (so to speak) for the event of analyzing the quantum vibrations on our tongue! All senses must be read, not just one!

Regards,

Tony

report post as inappropriate

Tony DiCarlo replied on May. 11, 2013 @ 14:19 GMT
...... and - if you consider the lightening strike a "dipole emission" ... a neuron firing within a contiguous brain.... we then must consider this neuron firing, like the strike of lightening, to initiate multiple quantum degrees of freedom for information to spread from the precise neuron event location - just like the lightening. This implies that our brain may simply use the same physical principles to transfer information as that of the lightening strike. A neuron firing sends a flash of light within the brain, and this is followed by acoustic information (possibly in the form of an ion gradient wave - brain's thunder) that follows in the light's wake... acoustic waves would be superimposed with all other neuron firing acoustic information within the confines of the brain (liquid acoustic chamber) .... possibly generating local chemical bonding change regions ... a physical recording.... like the ozone - or the char left behind.....

report post as inappropriate

domenico oricchio wrote on Jun. 6, 2013 @ 13:23 GMT
I read today of the green sulfur bacteria that use infrared photosynthesis.

I am thinking that an evolutionary route can be happened, from self replicating moleculs, first viruses with helical capsid, and bacteria with infrared photosynthesis.

The bacteria with infrared photosynthesis can use the energy of the hydrothermal vent, and wih little evolutionary change, can use this to stay near the hydrothermal vent (the first eye).

An other little change, and molecule identification can be possible (infrared vision of the molecules like olfaction).

It can be useful a dna sequencing of the bacteria, to identify the genes.

Saluti

Domenico

report post as inappropriate

Platohagel wrote on Sep. 20, 2013 @ 04:35 GMT
What is Life?

http://www.eskesthai.com/2013/06/quantum-biology-and-hidden-
of-nature.html

Quantum Biology Label for more.

report post as inappropriate

DR. EDWARD SIEGEL wrote on Nov. 6, 2013 @ 21:22 GMT
TRENDY MUCH-HYPED "QUANTUM-BIOLOGY" IS DECIDEDLY NOT NEW AND NOT NEWS!!!

IT STARTED A LONG TIME/THREE-DECADED AGO WITH A HOST OF NOBEL-PRIZEWINNERS:

HERBERT FROHLICH[Nuovo Cimento 7, PPM(1977); Intl. J. Quantum-Chem. 11,641(1968);Advances in Electron-Devices 53(1980);...];

RUDOLPH MOSSBAUER[J. Physique 41, C1-489(1980); Zeitschrift fur Naturforschung 37c, 57(1982); European Biophysics 12, 107(1985);... ];

VITALI GOLDANSKII[Physica Scripta 33, 257(1986); Soviet-Physics Doklady-Biophysics 272, 209(1983); Soviet-Physics Uspehki 27, 462(1984)...];

EMILIO DEL GUIDICE[Nuclear-Physics B251, 375(1985); B275, 185(1986)];

KARL-ALBERT POPP[Photon-Emission from Biological-Systems, Academic(1987);... ];

J. LI[Physics Letters 116A, 405(1986)]

FREDERICK YOUNG AND PIERRE NOYES

THEIR GENERIC CONCLUSION IS THAT PROTOPLASM IS AN AQUEOUS-FERROELECTRIC/ELECTRET

WHICH EXHIBITS 1/f-"NOISE"~(FLUCTUATION-DISSIPATION THEOREM)~GENERALIZED-SUSCEPTIBILITY POWER-SPECTRUM HYPERBOLICITY INEVITABILITY EQUIVALENT TO BOTH HEALTH AND ORIENTAL CHI/KI AND CAPABLE OF BOSE-EINSTEIN CONDENSATION EQUIVALENT TO BOTH ORIENTAL CHI-GUNG OR LIFE. QUITE AMAZINGLY AIKIDO MASTER(9TH DAN-HIGHEST LEVEL NON-JAPANESE AIKIDO BLACK/RED-BELT EVER) JOHN THOMAS READ["AIKIDO, AIKIBUJITSU AND THE NATURAL-LAW"]BOOK REACHES VERY SIMILAR TO IDENTICAL CONCLUSIONS!!! IN FIRST SIEGEL ATTACHMENT HEREIN NEAR END SIEGEL FUZZYICS=CATEGORYICS=PRAGMATYICS("Son of 'TRIZ'")/CATEGORY-SEMANTICS COGNITION ANALYTICS MANIFESTLY DEMONSTRATES THEIR EQUIVALENCE!!!

attachments:
FULL_PAPER_COMPLEX_QUANTUM-STATISTICS_IN_FRACTAL-DIMENSIONS.pdf

report post as inappropriate