Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Jim__

(15,292 posts)
4. Is coherence selected or a structural by-product?
Mon Mar 19, 2012, 10:08 AM
Mar 2012

That seems to be an open question. There is a little bit of discussion of this in a short
article in Nature. An excerpt:

...

Quantum coherence in photosynthesis seems to be beneficial to the organisms using it. But did their ability to exploit quantum effects evolve through natural selection? Or is quantum coherence just an accidental side effect of the way certain molecules are structured? "There is a lot of speculation about the evolutionary question, and a lot of misunderstanding," says Scholes, who is far from sure about the answer. "We cannot tell if this effect in photosynthesis is selected for, nor if there is the option not to use coherence to move the electronic energy. There are no data available at all even to address the question."

He points out that it isn't obvious why selection would favour coherence. "Almost all photosynthetic organisms spend most of the day trying to moderate light-harvesting. It is rare to be light-limited. So why would there be evolutionary pressure to tweak light-harvesting efficiency?" Fleming agrees: he suspects that quantum coherence is not adaptive, but is simply "a by-product of the dense packing of chromophores required to optimize solar absorption". Scholes hopes to investigate the issue by comparing antenna proteins isolated from species of cryptophyte algae that evolved at different times.

But even if quantum coherence in biological systems is a chance effect, adds Fleming, its consequences are extraordinary, making systems insensitive to disorder in the distribution of energy. What is more, he says, it "enables 'rectifier-like' one-way energy transfer, produces the fastest [energy-transfer] rate, is temperature-insensitive and probably a few other things I haven't thought of".

These effects, in turn, suggest practical uses. Perhaps most obviously, says Scholes, a better understanding of how biological systems achieve quantum coherence in ambient conditions will "change the way we think about design of light-harvesting structures". This could allow scientists to build technology such as solar cells with improved energy-conversion efficiencies. Seth Lloyd considers this "a reasonable expectation", and is particularly hopeful that his discovery of the positive role of environmental noise will be useful for engineering photonic systems using materials such as quantum dots (nanoscale crystals) or highly branched polymers studded with light-absorbing chemical groups, which can serve as artificial antenna arrays.

...

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

However, it would be a big mistake... longship Mar 2012 #1
Straight to the point tama Mar 2012 #3
Is coherence selected or a structural by-product? Jim__ Mar 2012 #4
Wider context tama Mar 2012 #8
I'm not sure why you would begin by looking at a wider context. Jim__ Mar 2012 #15
To begin with tama Mar 2012 #16
A couple of thoughts. Jim__ Mar 2012 #33
A clarification tama Mar 2012 #36
Lack of any supporting data longship Mar 2012 #5
The word "decoherence" tama Mar 2012 #6
This is complete and utter rubbish longship Mar 2012 #9
But, but... someone was wrong about something before... Silent3 Mar 2012 #11
I disagree tama Mar 2012 #13
Your endless devotion to vagueness is certainly amusing, however. Silent3 Mar 2012 #17
Why don't you even try? tama Mar 2012 #19
You seem to be getting different posters confused Silent3 Mar 2012 #20
Flattering ad hominem, thanks for that tama Mar 2012 #28
I have no problem with people trying to understand "quantum" Silent3 Mar 2012 #29
You are making up tama Mar 2012 #31
New Age? longship Mar 2012 #32
Pseudoskepticism tama Mar 2012 #45
Thank you. Thank you. And THANK YOU!!! nt Joseph8th Mar 2012 #40
Nice tama Mar 2012 #12
Sorry! Your post makes no physical sense longship Mar 2012 #18
First tama Mar 2012 #24
Tama, I'm with you longship Mar 2012 #30
Well that's clearly wrong bananas Mar 2012 #34
Wonderful take down longship Mar 2012 #35
Quantum cryptography, quantum teleportation, superconductors are some other examples bananas Mar 2012 #48
Please! It's bad enough to tarnish QM... Joseph8th Mar 2012 #41
Gödel tama Mar 2012 #43
Looking for a ToE ... Joseph8th Mar 2012 #46
Abstract tama Mar 2012 #47
Not sure why I'm bothering, but... Joseph8th Mar 2012 #49
Some good points tama Mar 2012 #50
Heheh... Cantor's Paradise... Joseph8th Mar 2012 #53
LOL - "mathematical theorems ... bear no relation to physics" bananas Mar 2012 #51
Math is not physics... Joseph8th Mar 2012 #52
Physics is NOT illogical or irrational... Joseph8th Mar 2012 #54
I didn't know there were Militant Holists, now... Joseph8th Mar 2012 #38
LOL tama Mar 2012 #39
OMG... Joseph8th Mar 2012 #42
Condencending tone tama Mar 2012 #44
Anybody tama Mar 2012 #7
Hmm. DeWitt. Interesting longship Mar 2012 #10
First tama Mar 2012 #14
Okay, I'm with you on all except the "observer" longship Mar 2012 #21
Well, I think there's more to the "observer" unless you're effectively redefining the term caraher Mar 2012 #22
Touché, Zurek is above my pay grade longship Mar 2012 #23
I do think we're broadly in agreement caraher Mar 2012 #26
Thanks tama Mar 2012 #27
See post 24 for answer to also this n/t tama Mar 2012 #25
Delayed choice experiment tama Mar 2012 #37
So Stuart Kaufmann is still working.. arendt Mar 2012 #2
Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Science»Quantum Biology and the P...»Reply #4