Quantum biology: Do weird physics effects abound in nature?

Looks like the world of quantum physics might be breaking out into the faculty of bilology. Apparently the naviagtion system of birds might work on the theory of quantam entaglement.

Experiments show that European robins only oriented themselves for migration under certain colours of light, and that very weak radio waves could completely mix up their sense of direction. Neither should affect the standard compass that biologists once believed birds had within their cells.

What makes more sense is the quantum effect of entanglement. Under quantum rules, no matter how far apart an "entangled" pair of particles gets, each seems to "know" what the other is up to - they can even seem to pass information to one another faster than the speed of ligh

www.bbc.co.uk...

This process comes down to a single molecules in the birds eye. This idea is still controversial and is akin to the idea that came out recently that smell works on a quantum level aswell..

reply to post by purplemer


Well this is certainly an interesting idea/theory. If entanglement effects can be found in a living being, and proven through experiment, it will go a long way to finally getting the entanglement principle "up" into the macro world. Thanks for the thread.

What makes more sense is the quantum effect of entanglement. Under quantum rules, no matter how far apart an "entangled" pair of particles gets, each seems to "know" what the other is up to - they can even seem to pass information to one another faster than the speed of light

The trouble is in creating the entangled pair of particles and then getting them to where you want them to be. But even if you could do that with a biological system, there is no information passed with entanglement, at least not information that is of much use. You can't affect the state of the particles and you can't know the quantum state of the particle until you "look" at it.

reply to post by Phage


I do not get why you think there is no information passed with entaglement. I thought changing the spin for an entangled photon for example is passing information.

reply to post by purplemer


This talk is a little about this subject. Its not very in depth, only giving a few examples, but interesting talk none the less.

reply to post by purplemer

I thought changing the spin for an entangled photon for example is passing information.

Not if you don't know what the spin is (or was) until you look at it.

reply to post by Phage


In this case, wouldn't it be the bird who is looking at it? I've never understood how the observer principle seems only to be applied to humans, whereas any animal can also collapse the wave as it wanders/flies/hops around.

Slightly off topic, but one of my most interesting nature moments was living in a home where a grackel had built a nest in a hold within the gutter area. The baby birds had to be fed by the mother flying up into the hole, where the nest was above any line of sight to the outside. By luck I was there when the babies emerged. Three of them flew off without a hitch, and the fourth flew into the bushes in front of me, look confused, reorienated, and flew off to join its siblings. They then followed the mother around the yards around us and in our yard, swooping after her as she led them around. In this case the babies made an instant map of the surroundings, recognized that objects were solid, had instant spatial comprehension, and the learning curve involved per moment must have been as steep as any I've seen in a living thing.

reply to post by Aleister

In this case, wouldn't it be the bird who is looking at it? I've never understood how the observer principle seems only to be applied to humans, whereas any animal can also collapse the wave as it wanders/flies/hops around.

The principle has nothing to do with who (or what) makes the observation. I think a better term to use is "measurement", since we can't really "observe" the quantum state anyway. The act of measuring the quantum state of a particle causes it to exist.

reply to post by Phage

Then, from your knowledge base, do you fall on the side of "the room doesn't exist until someone (or a bird, for this thread's example) puts a sensory reading into it - sight, touch, scent, etc." or "the room is always there as is, no matter if anything is observing it". That is, of course, an interest area for those of us who are strictly scientific illiterate when it comes to actual formula, discovery, and theoritical findings. You seem to have much more of a handle on this stuff than I and most others here do. Thanks.

reply to post by Aleister

Then, from your knowledge base, do you fall on the side of "the room doesn't exist until someone (or a bird, for this thread's example) puts a sensory reading into it - sight, touch, scent, etc." or "the room is always there as is, no matter if anything is observing it".

As I understand it, the room is always there. A room is not a single, independent atomic particle. It is a collection of atomic particles which, in their interactions with each other, produce a room. Not spontaneously, they have to be placed in the proper configuration. It doesn't matter what spin or any other quantum properties each of those individual particles possess at any given time. The room is real.

reply to post by Phage

Thanks, it's good to have your take on that. I know there are opposing views on that one, but I'm not articulate enough in the science to express them. Sure do love to swim in them though.

Originally posted by purplemer
Looks like the world of quantum physics might be breaking out into the faculty of bilology. Apparently the naviagtion system of birds might work on the theory of quantam entaglement.

Experiments show that European robins only oriented themselves for migration under certain colours of light, and that very weak radio waves could completely mix up their sense of direction. Neither should affect the standard compass that biologists once believed birds had within their cells.

What makes more sense is the quantum effect of entanglement. Under quantum rules, no matter how far apart an "entangled" pair of particles gets, each seems to "know" what the other is up to - they can even seem to pass information to one another faster than the speed of ligh

www.bbc.co.uk...

This process comes down to a single molecules in the birds eye. This idea is still controversial and is akin to the idea that came out recently that smell works on a quantum level aswell..

Quantum biology is not a recent developement. Stuart hammeroff and roger penrose came up with a theory using quantum to explain consciousness. More recently than that it has been found that photosynthesis uses quantum superposition to maximise effiency. Most scientists found it hard to accept quantum phenomenon at high temperatures due to decoherence as most of the quantum weirdness has been studied at near absolute temperatures, Also eneymes that are used as a catalyst use quantum tunneling. If you study biology its going to get a lot more fun when combined with quantum

reply to post by minor007

And then there is Robert Anton Wilson's 1990 book "Quantum Psychology":

en.wikipedia.org...

Wilson was always "early in the game" when it came to quantum science data and implications.

reply to post by purplemer

This process comes down to a single molecules in the birds eye.

Define molecule, Please.

A molecule (pron.: /ˈmɒlɪkjuːl/) is an electrically neutral group of two or more atoms held together by covalent chemical bonds.[1][2][3][4][5][6] Molecules are distinguished from ions by their lack of electrical charge.

You are about two levels higher than the quantum level, when talking about molecules, and I'm surprised Phage didn't point that out.

"Quantum" is the new catch phrase, but let's not overuse it. To define a term such as "quantum biology" is a misnomer, as biology functions well above the quantum level.

But, to err, maybe there is a link between. We don't know it yet, and I remain open to possibilities.

I would refute your claims of biological life being tied to the quantum effects of the multiverse, but my evidence would be as weak as your supposition. Catch-22.

Truth is, we simply don't know.

SnF.