Quantum Entanglement and....Photosynthesis?

butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Quantum Entanglement and....Photosynthesis?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=quantum-entanglement-and-photo

As nature’s own solar cells, plants convert sunlight into energy via photosynthesis. New details are emerging about how the process is able to exploit the strange behavior of quantum systems, which could lead to entirely novel approaches to capturing usable light from the sun.

All photosynthetic organisms use protein-based “antennas” in their cells to capture incoming light, convert it to energy and direct that energy to reaction centers—critical trigger molecules that release electrons and get the chemical conversion rolling. These antennas must strike a difficult balance: they must be broad enough to absorb as much sunlight as possible yet not grow so large that they impair their own ability to shuttle the energy on to the reaction centers.

This is where quantum mechanics becomes useful. Quantum systems can exist in a superposition, or mixture, of many different states at once. What’s more, these states can interfere with one another—adding constructively at some points, subtracting at others. If the energy going into the antennas could be broken into an elaborate superposition and made to interfere constructively with itself, it could be transported to the reaction center with nearly 100 percent efficiency.

A new study by Mohan Sarovar, a chemist at the University of California, Berkeley, shows that some antennas—namely, those found on a certain type of green photosynthetic bacteria—do just that. Moreover, nearby antennas split incoming energy between them, which leads not just to mixed states but to states that are entangled over a broad (in quantum terms) distance. Gregory ­Scholes, a chemist at the University of Toronto, shows in a soon to be published study that a species of marine algae utilizes a similar trick. Interestingly, the fuzzy quantum states in these systems are relatively long-lived, even though they exist at room temperature and in complicated biological systems. In quantum experiments in the physics lab, the slightest intrusion will destroy a quantum superposition (or state).

These studies mark the first evidence of biological organisms that exploit strange quantum behaviors. A better understanding of this intersection of microbiology and quantum information, researchers say, could lead to “bioquantum” solar cells that are more efficient than today’s photovoltaics.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


WasitacatisaW
atheist
WasitacatisaW's picture
Posts: 28
Joined: 2011-03-16
User is offlineOffline
I find it interesting that

I find it interesting that quantum events can be manipulated by a biological system. I wonder what it is that allowed these organisms to evolve to specifically manipulate processes on the quantum level. This could easily be related to the forum post, "Consciousness is in your body, not your mind." by Atheistextremist. Maybe because all the cells in an organism have consciousness, and are able to make educated decisions depending on the biology of the organism. Uh? UH? Smiling


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
WasitacatisaW wrote:I find

WasitacatisaW wrote:

I find it interesting that quantum events can be manipulated by a biological system. I wonder what it is that allowed these organisms to evolve to specifically manipulate processes on the quantum level. This could easily be related to the forum post, "Consciousness is in your body, not your mind." by Atheistextremist. Maybe because all the cells in an organism have consciousness, and are able to make educated decisions depending on the biology of the organism. Uh? UH? Smiling

Quantum collapse of the wave function, and other quantum effects, are in no way dependent on conscious observation, just any interaction with the wider 'macro' world. This has been demonstrated with instruments set up to measure and record quantum events. The quantum collapse can be shown to have happened before anyone actually looks at the recorded results.

Any physical effect or mechanism which will increase the efficiency of a process in such a way as to enhance the growth and reproduction of a life form can form by mutation and natural selection, whether it relies on some aspect of quantum mechanics or not.

Nothing remarkable here, in that sense. It is certainly interesting that some biological mechanism is that sensitive to such effects.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


WasitacatisaW
atheist
WasitacatisaW's picture
Posts: 28
Joined: 2011-03-16
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:

WasitacatisaW wrote:

I find it interesting that quantum events can be manipulated by a biological system. I wonder what it is that allowed these organisms to evolve to specifically manipulate processes on the quantum level. This could easily be related to the forum post, "Consciousness is in your body, not your mind." by Atheistextremist. Maybe because all the cells in an organism have consciousness, and are able to make educated decisions depending on the biology of the organism. Uh? UH? Smiling

Quantum collapse of the wave function, and other quantum effects, are in no way dependent on conscious observation, just any interaction with the wider 'macro' world. This has been demonstrated with instruments set up to measure and record quantum events. The quantum collapse can be shown to have happened before anyone actually looks at the recorded results.

Any physical effect or mechanism which will increase the efficiency of a process in such a way as to enhance the growth and reproduction of a life form can form by mutation and natural selection, whether it relies on some aspect of quantum mechanics or not.

Nothing remarkable here, in that sense. It is certainly interesting that some biological mechanism is that sensitive to such effects.

But how could the organism be able to exploit a quantum event, without observing the exploitations positive results?


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Welcome to the forum, by the

Welcome to the forum, by the way.

WasitacatisaW wrote:
But how could the organism be able to exploit a quantum event, without observing the exploitations positive results?

It is natural selection, not the individual organisms, that exploits QM by selecting for the organisms that have any beneficial traits, however slight, which rely on QM. This process is blind and simply follows from the relationship between genes and environments i.e. natural selection does not "intelligently" "know" any event or phenomenon. The fact that plants with a more efficient system of photosynthesis would have an advantage in reproduction is functionally equivalent to "knowing" the positive results.    

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 WasitacatisaW wrote:But

 

WasitacatisaW wrote:
But how could the organism be able to exploit a quantum event, without observing the exploitations positive results?

 

Actually, the “observer effect” is born from the tension of trying to express Copenhagen interpretation QM in prose English.

 

As Bob correctly observed, the collapse of the wave form happens from interaction with the macro-world around the event at hand. Perhaps it would help if you considered how such an experiment would be set up.

 

You are looking at your computer monitor to see what is going on in the experiment. However, before you can see the results, the event had to interact with the stuff of the detector (which is what caused the collapse in the first place). Then the information thus generated had to go up wires into your computer and be processed by whatever software was involved.

 

So there is a long chain of things happening between the actual detection and the information reaching you.

 

Think of it this way: If an observer was really required, how would all of the processes of the universe have happened prior to there being critters (us) smart enough to understand what is going on?

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


WasitacatisaW
atheist
WasitacatisaW's picture
Posts: 28
Joined: 2011-03-16
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Welcome

butterbattle wrote:

Welcome to the forum, by the way.

WasitacatisaW wrote:
But how could the organism be able to exploit a quantum event, without observing the exploitations positive results?

It is natural selection, not the individual organisms, that exploits QM by selecting for the organisms that have any beneficial traits, however slight, which rely on QM. This process is blind and simply follows from the relationship between genes and environments i.e. natural selection does not "intelligently" "know" any event or phenomenon. The fact that plants with a more efficient system of photosynthesis would have an advantage in reproduction is functionally equivalent to "knowing" the positive results.    

Oh, I didn't realize that Natural Selection is a blind phenomenon. I figured something had to make the decision on what exactly to change in the evolutionary process. Could you possibly link me a post or article further explaining natural selection and how it selects exactly?


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
WasitacatisaW wrote:Oh, I

WasitacatisaW wrote:

Oh, I didn't realize that Natural Selection is a blind phenomenon. I figured something had to make the decision on what exactly to change in the evolutionary process. Could you possibly link me a post or article further explaining natural selection and how it selects exactly?

 

It is all about grandchildren.  Those organisms able to raise offspring who are able to raise offspring have the genes that get replicated throughout a population.  No direction, no choosing, no "better", no survival of the fittest, just a lot of sex.

And, as a follow on - mutations happen continuously - you, personally, have approximately 175 mutations.

http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/156/1/297

Quote:

The human diploid genome contains 7 x 109 bp (MARSHALL 1999 Down) and thus ~175 new mutations per generation (range 91–238).

 

Kind of technical, but that sentence is the answer to the question.

Most of those mutations are not in your reproductive cells, so they won't be passed on to the next generation.  Some may become cancerous.  Some may be positive.  Most will be neutral and will have no effect positive or negative on your well being.

For serious study on evolution and genetics, start with http://www.talkorigins.org/

They have good articles on the basic science.  Yes, they are directed towards arguing with creationists, but that just means the articles are written by people who know what they are talking about and the articles are readable by non-professionals.

Continue on with

http://pandasthumb.org/

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula  (may be unavailable currently due to DOS attack)

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/Evolution.html  (UCLA good enough for you?)

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/evidence.html

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html  (not everyone agrees with Stephen Jay Gould's theories, but his books are a good source for a basic understanding of how evolution works.)

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html

http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BIO48/lectures

http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/

 

Scientific American, Natural History Museum, and The Smithsonian all have great info as well.

Books:

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-What-Fossils-Say-Matters/dp/0231139624/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1300336157&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Second-Douglas-Futuyma/dp/0878932232/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1300336184&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Species-Facsimile-Harvard-Paperbacks/dp/0674637526/ref=pd_sim_b_2

OR

http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Species-150th-Anniversary/dp/0451529065/ref=pd_sim_b_98

 

These books are available at your local library or through inter-library loan, so you don't have to spend the big bucks.  And, always go through the bibliography, particularly the newer books.  Great finds in the back.

Don't ask any more questions until you have the basics down, 'k?

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
WasitacatisaW wrote:Oh, I

WasitacatisaW wrote:
Oh, I didn't realize that Natural Selection is a blind phenomenon. I figured something had to make the decision on what exactly to change in the evolutionary process.

To say that "something" "makes" "decisions" about what to change implies an intelligence that can dictate the traits of all organisms on whim. That wouldn't be the theory of evolution via natural selection at all; that would be some essentially unknown, weird, evolution/Creationism hybrid featuring a supernatural method of changing that you arbitrarily labeled "natural selection." That would be "un"natural selection.

WasitacatisaW wrote:
Could you possibly link me a post or article further explaining natural selection and how it selects exactly?

Explain to me how you think evolution works.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


WasitacatisaW
atheist
WasitacatisaW's picture
Posts: 28
Joined: 2011-03-16
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:WasitacatisaW

cj wrote:

WasitacatisaW wrote:

Oh, I didn't realize that Natural Selection is a blind phenomenon. I figured something had to make the decision on what exactly to change in the evolutionary process. Could you possibly link me a post or article further explaining natural selection and how it selects exactly?

 

Don't ask any more questions until you have the basics down, 'k?

 

I'm sorry man, I didn't realize general inquiry was not a part of this forum. I won't ask questions. I'm just that kind of person, and I'll honestly take my time researching the links you provided.

Is this forum reserved for the opinion of specialists in each respective field? Because I have been posting a lot since I joined this site earlier today, and this is the first time I've really felt as if I shouldn't be expressing my opinions or concerns, simply for my lack of understanding. I figured this is the best way to go about reducing the level of ignorance I have in the subjects this forum discusses. In the international baccalaureate program I figured out the best way to learn something is to talk to the best, you know?


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
WasitacatisaW wrote:cj

WasitacatisaW wrote:

cj wrote:

WasitacatisaW wrote:

Oh, I didn't realize that Natural Selection is a blind phenomenon. I figured something had to make the decision on what exactly to change in the evolutionary process. Could you possibly link me a post or article further explaining natural selection and how it selects exactly?

 

Don't ask any more questions until you have the basics down, 'k?

 

I'm sorry man, I didn't realize general inquiry was not a part of this forum. I won't ask questions. I'm just that kind of person, and I'll honestly take my time researching the links you provided.

Is this forum reserved for the opinion of specialists in each respective field? Because I have been posting a lot since I joined this site earlier today, and this is the first time I've really felt as if I shouldn't be expressing my opinions or concerns, simply for my lack of understanding. I figured this is the best way to go about reducing the level of ignorance I have in the subjects this forum discusses. In the international baccalaureate program I figured out the best way to learn something is to talk to the best, you know?

 

No, but it is frustrating to answer the same questions about evolution over and over when it is very easy to get the goods from the horses mouth.

 

All Sandy (CJ!  Lol.) is saying is she wants you to read what she linked and then ask informed questions, rather than ignore what she linked and ask a million uninformed questions.  There wasn't any judgement in it, just advice.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
WasitacatisaW wrote:I'm

WasitacatisaW wrote:

I'm sorry man, I didn't realize general inquiry was not a part of this forum. I won't ask questions. I'm just that kind of person, and I'll honestly take my time researching the links you provided.

Is this forum reserved for the opinion of specialists in each respective field? Because I have been posting a lot since I joined this site earlier today, and this is the first time I've really felt as if I shouldn't be expressing my opinions or concerns, simply for my lack of understanding. I figured this is the best way to go about reducing the level of ignorance I have in the subjects this forum discusses. In the international baccalaureate program I figured out the best way to learn something is to talk to the best, you know?

 

Apologies, I didn't mean you had to be expert and I didn't mean to put you down - I just went through a long discussion with someone else who asked question after question without apparently looking anything up.  Maybe someone else will have more patience, but for me - do your homework then come back and ask questions.

Evolutionary biology is my hobby - I am only an expert in comparison to some people but far from being a professional.  But I have been reading in the field for over 30 years now.  It takes time - more time than a few paragraphs on a forum.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


WasitacatisaW
atheist
WasitacatisaW's picture
Posts: 28
Joined: 2011-03-16
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:WasitacatisaW

cj wrote:

WasitacatisaW wrote:

I'm sorry man, I didn't realize general inquiry was not a part of this forum. I won't ask questions. I'm just that kind of person, and I'll honestly take my time researching the links you provided.

Is this forum reserved for the opinion of specialists in each respective field? Because I have been posting a lot since I joined this site earlier today, and this is the first time I've really felt as if I shouldn't be expressing my opinions or concerns, simply for my lack of understanding. I figured this is the best way to go about reducing the level of ignorance I have in the subjects this forum discusses. In the international baccalaureate program I figured out the best way to learn something is to talk to the best, you know?

 

Apologies, I didn't mean you had to be expert and I didn't mean to put you down - I just went through a long discussion with someone else who asked question after question without apparently looking anything up.  Maybe someone else will have more patience, but for me - do your homework then come back and ask questions.

Evolutionary biology is my hobby - I am only an expert in comparison to some people but far from being a professional.  But I have been reading in the field for over 30 years now.  It takes time - more time than a few paragraphs on a forum.

 

Yeah it's cool man, I just got the impression that this site was for educational purposes. And I have found, researching the topics of physics, evolution, natural selection, it hard to find updated and correct sources. You know how many times I've been researching Natural Selection and found information posted in 2004, but the information is from the 70's. I find when I ask someone who knows what they're talking about for the sources that they used, I skip all the bullshit. 

But I can see your frustration answering so many questions. I'll be sure to work a little harder at my research to specific questions.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote: Apologies, I

cj wrote:
 

Apologies, I didn't mean you had to be expert and I didn't mean to put you down - I just went through a long discussion with someone else who asked question after question without apparently looking anything up.  Maybe someone else will have more patience, but for me - do your homework then come back and ask questions.

Evolutionary biology is my hobby - I am only an expert in comparison to some people but far from being a professional.  But I have been reading in the field for over 30 years now.  It takes time - more time than a few paragraphs on a forum.

 

Lol, I know exactly who you mean CJ.  BTW CJ is a lady, not a man, she just has a deep voice and did a lot of steroids, so it's an understandable mistake... (joke, I'm kdding CJ)

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Thunderios
atheist
Posts: 261
Joined: 2010-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Pretty awesome. I think I

Pretty awesome. I think I heard birds use quantum entanglement to detect the earth's magnetic field, too.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Quantum collapse of the wave function, and other quantum effects, are in no way dependent on conscious observation

Some time ago, I was introduced to Quantum Physics.
By What the Bleep do we know?. I believed their shit.
In the YouTube comments I proposed another experiment: have them run the test again, while deleting half the data, so no conscious observer could ever read it, and see whether the electrons would still collapse.
Someone told me they had, and that the Wtbdwk?! hypothesis was right. And I believed him.
Almost became Luminon 2 Laughing out loud

Also, saying things like Natural Selection selects, kinda seems like an antropomorphism to me... And a selections obviously needs a selecTOR.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:Lol, I know

Ktulu wrote:

Lol, I know exactly who you mean CJ.  BTW CJ is a lady, not a man, she just has a deep voice and did a lot of steroids, so it's an understandable mistake... (joke, I'm kdding CJ)

 

You better be kidding - I stomp little boys like you for a little gentle warm up before really getting into my combat exercises.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Ktulu wrote:Lol, I

cj wrote:

Ktulu wrote:

Lol, I know exactly who you mean CJ.  BTW CJ is a lady, not a man, she just has a deep voice and did a lot of steroids, so it's an understandable mistake... (joke, I'm kdding CJ)

 

You better be kidding - I stomp little boys like you for a little gentle warm up before really getting into my combat exercises.

Oh my ButterBattle, I found a picture of cj!

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.