Life on the Edge: is it still alive?

[sophiecentaur]

I recently read ' Life on the Edge" by Jim Al-Khalili and Johnjoe McFadden. It was very readable and it got me quite convinced about the whole idea. Al-Khalili is a very presentable broadcaster / writer and offers an attractive case. But it was written some while ago and Google hasn't much to offer about subsequent work. The topic has appeared on PF several times but always seems to die an early death, with pretty short threads and lack of momentum.
Has anyone read more recent stuff (something as approachable as that book, preferably)?
The connection between Biology and QT has a good pedigree (going back to Schrodinger etc.) so it can't be just written off. Have the past threads died just because of lack of interest or do they stray too far into the realms of Nutty Science? The statistics of biological processes are fairly critical and QM seems to account for tipping the balance in favour of survival.
I would love to read some well informed opinions about this.

 

[houlahound]

Cliff notes please.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Cliff notes please.

I learned a new phrase! Cheers
This link is a more recent talk he gave (2015). Entertaining and a bit flowery but it has the message of the book. The intro puts it better than I would.

 

[DrChinese]

Have the past threads died just because of lack of interest or do they stray too far into the realms of Nutty Science?

Some of it is fringe. Or most, depending on perspective. Generally, this forum is for discussion of generally accepted science. Speculative ideas would not be appropriate. A specific example from the reference: "Jim Al-Khalili rounds up the extremely new, extremely strange world of quantum biology, where something Einstein once called “spooky action at a distance” helps birds navigate..." That's entanglement, and there is no way to use entanglement to assist in navigation - much less by a bird.

 

[sophiecentaur]

That's entanglement, and there is no way to use entanglement to assist in navigation - much less by a bird.

Did you read what was written or just the extract from the reference?

 

[houlahound]

I can see how it would be easy to confuse or deliberately exploit phenomena like pack dynamics with some spooky QM entanglement.

I have a neighbour just spent $1000+ on a frequency / energy machine that outputs quantum frequencies to cure her cancer, stopped radiotherapy treatment because she believes so strongly in the device.

Too much scope for exploitation in quantum biology arena IMO.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Too much scope for exploitation in quantum biology arena IMO.

I can understand someone thinking that. There's a lot of 'magic' about still.

 

[UsableThought]

there is no way to use entanglement to assist in navigation - much less by a bird.

Specifically regarding this one point, apparently there's been real research for some years now. What the current status is, I have no idea; but Google is not shy about coughing up search results for years from 2007 up to 2013 at the least; I didn't need to look very hard.

For popular articles, see this undated article from the American Physical Society's "Physics Central" web site: "Migration via quantum mechanics." Also this 2011 article from US News: https://www.usnews.com/science/articles/2011/01/10/quantum-compass-for-birds. Various researchers and research teams are mentioned, including Thorsten Ritz, a biophysicist at UC Irvine; here's his academic research page - https://www.physics.uci.edu/~tritz/Research/research.html - and here's a 2007 paper he was an author on: http://sites.biology.duke.edu/johnsenlab/pdfs/pubs/light magneto.pdf

Here's a 2013 paper from Physical Review E on "Quantum coherence and entanglement in the avian compass," by Pauls et al, mostly U.S.-based researchers.

And here's an interesting 2011 news feature from Nature.com on "Physics of life: The dawn of quantum biology."

Lots more I'm sure.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I really couldn't tell from Al-Khalili's presentation just how believable the whole thing is. He's very convincing but, otoh, he is an accomplished Science broadcaster (aka journalist aka instantly subject to suspicion). The topic smacks a bit of snake oil and homeopathy and can only be assessed by someone who really knows about these things. The other topics he delivers are much more main stream. He has a regular BBC Radio 4 slot "The Life Scientific" (I think BBC iPlayer is available worldwide) in which he talks to a range of very well regarded Scientists from a range of fields. They presumably rate him fairly well.
But at least it hasn't been totally discredited. It's clearly waiting to be taken up by a few more creditable researchers. You can imagine why it's not had universal acclaim.

 

[Buzz Bloom]

Hi Sophie:

I must confess from reading the summary of the book

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0307986810/?tag=pfamazon01-20​

is doesn't sound like a book I would want to read.
From your reading, can you post a short summary of any specific scientific conjectures the book offers.

The following seems like the "grabber" quote.

Even in an age of cloning and artificial biology, the remarkable truth remains: nobody has ever made anything living entirely out of dead material. Life remains the only way to make life. Are we still missing a vital ingredient in its creation?​

In the context of the quote

Jim Al-Khalili and Johnjoe Macfadden reveal that missing ingredient to be quantum mechanics; the phenomena that lie at the heart of this most mysterious of sciences​

does the book propose anything scientifically observable that makes it plausible that QM is the "heart" of life?

One observation: on our planet it took normal chemical processes several hundred million years before the first living cells appeared. Science has only been working on anything close to "creating life" for a few decades, and in my view there has there has been some actual promising progress. For example:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16382-artificial-molecule-evolves-in-the-lab/.​

I get it that replicating RNA is not yet life, but as Nobel laureate Christian de Duve has argued, the "RNA World" preceded the origin of cells.

Regards,
Buzz

 

[DrChinese]

Did you read what was written or just the extract from the reference?

I think I had looked at it a while back, but the blurb alone stopped me cold this time. It would be reasonable to explain ANY theoretical basis for being able to migrate/communicate with entangled anything before asking whether birds use such a mechanism.

In other words: there is no currently existing entanglement mechanism that I am aware of that supports this as a basis for further study. It would require new physics. If that is hidden in the article, I would welcome it being presented. (As opposed to sending us on a treasure hunt.)

On the other hand, one of the primary purposes of requiring peer-reviewed references - which this is not by a long shot - is to save us from discussing things which have no current theoretical support. I am sure that fringe science produces "hits" from time to time, but there is no particular reason to boost the fringe *because* it is the fringe. There is plenty of existing mainstream research in entanglement. What it is providing every week is pretty amazing stuff.

 

[Strilanc]

there is no way to use entanglement to assist in navigation - much less by a bird.

Actually, there is. The proposal is that the mechanism (some) birds use to detect the direction of the Earth's magnetic field involves some short-lived entanglement. Seth Lloyd talked about it in a lay-level talk at the Perimeter Institute [see 39:55]:

Firstly, the [robin] can tell the orientation of the magnetic field, but not whether it's north or south. [...]

Secondly, [the robins] can only tell the direction of the Earth's magnetic field when they're subjected to blue or green light. [...]

Thirdly, if you subject them to a rapidly oscillating electromagnetic field at like a million times a second they get totally disoriented. [...]

The only explanation that people have been able to come up with for this is a purely quantum mechanical explanation. [...] Blue or green photons have sufficient energy to [...] excite what's called a free radical pair. Two electrons get excited in some molecule. We don't know what the molecule is [i.e. it's still a hypothesis]. Now [the electrons are] in an entangled state [...] which is exquisitely sensitive to the orientation of the Earth's magnetic field but not to whether it's north or south. The rate at which the spins of the electrons rotate is proportional to the strength of the Earth's magnetic field and also to its orientation.

 

[DrChinese]

Actually, there is. The proposal is that the mechanism (some) birds use to detect the direction of the Earth's magnetic field involves some short-lived entanglement. Seth Lloyd talked about it in a lay-level talk at the Perimeter Institute [see 39:55]:

I am going to call that out. As far as I know - which is hardly conclusive - could be recreated in a apparatus and demonstrated to show direction of the Earth's magnetic field.

I don't care who said it, a suitable reference for the speculative science is appropriate. As to it being speculative, I quote: "The only explanation that people have been able to come up with..." That's speculation, my friend. Or how about this:

"The rate at which the spins of the electrons rotate is proportional to the strength of the Earth's magnetic field and also to its orientation." That's new to me (rotation speed and orientation of a pair of a pair of entangled excited electrons having a measurable dependency on a weak magnetic field), although I am open to be corrected. And how would a bird sense that rate anyway?

 

[Strilanc]

I don't care who said it, a suitable reference for the speculative science is appropriate.

The reference is "Magnetic Compass of Birds Is Based on a Molecule with Optimal Directional Sensitivity" by Ritz et al, 2009.

"The rate at which the spins of the electrons rotate is proportional to the strength of the Earth's magnetic field and also to its orientation." That's new to me (rotation speed and orientation of a pair of a pair of entangled excited electrons having a measurable dependency on a weak magnetic field), although I am open to be corrected. And how would a bird sense that rate anyway?

The paper should contain or reference all this information. Based on skimming the paper it looks like the details you want might be in https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7193/full/nature06834.html .

Why do you find the dependence between magnetic field and rotation to be surprising? Electron spin precesses in a magnetic field. Make the field stronger, and it precesses faster. Change the orientation of the field, and you change the axis of the precession. In the case of a singlet state, the electrons will precess in opposite directions so in effect they will precess into (and out of) a triple state that depends on the orientation of the magnetic field at a rate that depends on the strength of the magnetic field. The chance of measurements agreeing vs disagreeing at some fixed time after the creation of the singlet would then tell you details about the magnetic field. (Of course in a bird this all has to somehow translate into a neuron spiking or not.)

 

[DrChinese]

The reference is "Magnetic Compass of Birds Is Based on a Molecule with Optimal Directional Sensitivity" by Ritz et al, 2009.

First, this is a reference to a biophysical journal and not a quantum physics journal, as I would expect a suitable reference on entangled states. The current scientific consensus on this is: in animals, the mechanism for magnetoreception is currently unknown (assuming it exists) although there are hypothetical mechanisms under study.

Second, "spooky action at a distance" is nowhere involved. The hypothesized concept is essentially classical in the sense that it is about Zeeman interactions. The hypothesis is that molecules in a triplet state act differently in a magnetic field than those in a singlet state.

Third, their conclusion includes this comment: "We are currently not aware of any observations of radical pairs in biology that immediately match our suggested design. ... Our discussion of a possible realization is by necessity speculative, and alternatives cannot be excluded.... we were able to identify a unique type of radical pair as the only one consistent with experimental observations." Basically, they think their hypothesis is correct because they can't figure out any other explanation.

My review of the physics (which should hardly be considered authoritative) is that there are suppositions upon suppositions required to make sense of this. We really should not be discussing this material in the Quantum Physics forum until it passes the sniff test.

 

[sophiecentaur]

it doesn't sound like a book I would want to read.

I found it very readable and well written. I read a lot of fiction (not pulp) and not a lot of popular science (not cover to cover, at least) but I got through this book very quickly. Trouble with books / films /plays /music is that you need to try them before you can say Hit or Miss.
Thanks for your (and others') comments about the topic. I will wait to see if anything develops.

 

[rootone]

As one of the more recent pop-sci stars I think Jim Khalili is mostly right on the ball.
Able to describe complicated science ideas to anyone older than 8, yet still be respected by people less than 80

 

[Benbenben]

"... Basically, they think their hypothesis is correct because they can't figure out any other explanation. ..."

.
Isn't that the same logic you used to arrive at your conclusions; "...there is no way to use entanglement to assist in navigation - much less by a bird..." ?

 

[DrChinese]

.
Isn't that the same logic you used to arrive at your conclusions; "...there is no way to use entanglement to assist in navigation - much less by a bird..." ?

Maybe, let's see. The difference is that entanglement cannot be used for signalling, and it requires post selection on time frames resolved to billionths of a second - far too small a window for any cell to be able to respond accurately. There are many further conceptual issues in the hand-wavy explanation offered as a speculation. What I am saying is that there is no scientific leg to stand on in current science of this area. If someone could first construct a compass using quantum entanglement, then we would have something to discuss as it relates to a bird. But that has yet to happen.

So I am saying: "there is no known science in support, so they are wrong." That's a big difference from saying "there is no known science in support, but we are right anyway." You can justify ANYTHING by merely saying that something different *could* be discovered in the future. But that is not the standard used at PhysicsForums:there must be current theory or evidence. I absolutely question even the initial premise that birds (or fish) navigate by magnetism. What little I have seen on that is terrible, to put it mildly. The study featured 12 "confused" birds.

 

[Strilanc]

So I am saying: "there is no known science in support, so they are wrong." That's a big difference from saying "there is no known science in support, but we are right anyway." You can justify ANYTHING by merely saying that something different *could* be discovered in the future. But that is not the standard used at PhysicsForums:there must be current theory or evidence. I absolutely question even the initial premise that birds (or fish) navigate by magnetism. What little I have seen on that is terrible, to put it mildly. The study featured 12 "confused" birds.

What? The paper isn't speculative in the sense of proposing new physics, it's speculative in the sense of claiming specific known physics is happening in some particular environment (i.e. in a bird's eye). They aren't using entanglement to communicate, they're just having a singlet state last long enough to rotate a bit before recombining in some way.

I also feel like being published in Nature meets the bar for actually being talked about on this forum. Maybe that means the talk is "this is a stretch, the peer review system sure failed there", but a) I think that's a fine bar and a fine conversation for this forum and b) I don't think this paper is one of those cases.

 

[DrChinese]

What? The paper isn't speculative in the sense of proposing new physics, it's speculative in the sense of claiming specific known physics is happening in some particular environment (i.e. in a bird's eye). They aren't using entanglement to communicate, they're just having a singlet state last long enough to rotate a bit before recombining in some way.

This isn't known physics, that's my point. The paper has a high-level diagram of a showing singlet and triplet yields of something, which purports to represent that would be sensitive to a very faint magnetic field. I have never seen anything like it, but that is just me. I would happily change my opinion if evidence warranted.

I'd like to see someone take a specific molecule, place it in some kind of entangled (singlet) state using visible light, apply a very faint magnetic field to it, allow it to relax (I guess), and detect by-products (or lack thereof) that would indicate the direction of the faint magnetic field. The many problems of this should be obvious, starting with using ordinary light to place something into an singlet state. And what by-products indicate the direction of a magnetic field?

And I certainly don't agree that the references are suitable for PF, but I guess that is a matter of opinion. My point is that discussion of quantum biology should be limited to areas where there is sound foundation, and this is not one of those.

 

[Zafa Pi]

I absolutely question even the initial premise that birds (or fish) navigate by magnetism.

You have company.

until it passes the sniff test.

The article I linked to above suggests sniffing navigation as more plausible than compass, and for good reason.

 

[UsableThought]

I also feel like being published in Nature meets the bar for actually being talked about on this forum. Maybe that means the talk is "this is a stretch, the peer review system sure failed there", but a) I think that's a fine bar and a fine conversation for this forum and b) I don't think this paper is one of those cases.

And I certainly don't agree that the references are suitable for PF, but I guess that is a matter of opinion.

Without knowing the field, I would still hold that @Strilanc is correct here; and further, I disagree with @DrChinese that "it's a matter of opinion" whether the references mentioned "are suitable for PF." It may be a matter of opinion generally; but in the context of PF, it is a matter of forum rules.

Here is the long version excerpted from the rules topic on acceptable sources:

Generally, discussion topics should be traceable to standard textbooks or to peer-reviewed scientific literature. Usually, we accept references from journals that are listed here: http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/mjl/

In recent years, there has been an increasing number of "fringe" and Internet-only journals that appear to have lax reviewing standards. We do not generally accept references from such journals. Note that some of these fringe journals are listed in Thomson Reuters. Just because a journal is listed in Thomson Reuters does not mean it is acceptable.

Note that Nature is included on Thomson Reuters: http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jlresults.cgi?PC=MASTER&Full=nature Therefore to ban cites from Nature, the argument would have to be made that Nature is a fringe journal. If this were to happen, cites from other mainstream journals could be attacked along the same lines. This would result in moderators having to evaluate cites on a topic-by-topic, thread-by-thread basis - an impossible task. The forum would break down.

What I would really suggest DrChinese do if he has such a violent disagreement with a topic such as this originating in biophysics is either write an Insights piece examining whether in his opinion the field is adequately rigorous, or else start a thread ditto. That would be interesting & worth reading provided the discussion stayed civil. A thread might be better as it would be a pro-and-con discussion, whereas an Insights piece would necessarily be the author's opinion only & thus put a heavy research workload on that person.

 

[DrChinese]

Without knowing the field, I would still hold that @Strilanc is correct here; and further, I disagree with @DrChinese that "it's a matter of opinion" whether the references mentioned "are suitable for PF." It may be a matter of opinion generally; but in the context of PF, it is a matter of forum rules...

This is the quantum physics forum, and the subject purports to relate biology to quantum physics. The reference is not suitable for this forum, and clearly it IS a matter of opinion. While my opinion may not be shared by everyone, I am sure it is shared by many here.

 

[UsableThought]

This is the quantum physics forum, and the subject purports to relate biology to quantum physics. The reference is not suitable for this forum, and clearly it IS a matter of opinion. While my opinion may not be shared by everyone, I am sure it is shared by many here.

Not to be pedantic, but your contention that "The reference is not suitable for this forum" is not backed up by the actual posted rules for the quantum physics forum: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/quantum-physics-forum-rules.149069/

"Not suitable" is pretty strong language, remember - which doesn't mean you don't have an argument, just that the rules currently don't support that argument. Why not see if a moderator will support you? You could either suggest tightening the q.p. rules for rigor of the kind you have cited in your arguments; or else moving this thread to some other forum, e.g the medical/biological forum.

 

[Simon Phoenix]

I would love to read some well informed opinions about this.

Unfortunately I only have bare opinions to offer

However, I really enjoyed the book too. I've been lazy and not chased up the references in it, but the notion that quantum processes and structures (such as tunnelling and entanglement) might be (are?) critical to some biological functions is not obviously fringe science in my opinion. That entanglement structures might provide a more sensitive measurement scheme within a biological context is also not crazy. After all, much of quantum imaging and quantum metrology is predicated on this kind of notion too.

Like you I would love to hear some more well-informed opinion on the matter, but I thought it was becoming more accepted that things like tunnelling were kind of essential for the functioning of some biological catalysts and that entanglement was a critical resource used at some point during photosynthesis? Don't know enough, sorry.

 

[DrChinese]

Why not see if a moderator will support you? You could either suggest tightening the q.p. rules for rigor of the kind you have cited in your arguments; or else moving this thread to some other forum, e.g the medical/biological forum.

The OP asked for input on an article, specifically whether it was at the fringe, and I provided mine. I didn't think a moderator needed to be involved. As to the rules: there is no one single indicator of whether something is or is not allowed here. You must look at the context as well. Quantum gravity has speculative elements but can be discussed within constraints, as can most areas of active research.

Not that my opinion matters: but if the speculative elements of posts are reasonably identified (so that the casual reader is alerted), then often further discussion can occur without hitting the fringes. Sometimes I comment on the quality of the references precisely so that discussion can continue, with caveats in mind. I think that many PF posters operate similarly. (If I really thought forum rules were being badly violated, I would simply report the post.)

I would not be surprised to learn that there are quantum mechanical elements in biology (over and above those related to chemistry). But entanglement ("spooky action at a distance")? That would surprise me (on the other hand Simon Phoenix said it would not surprise him). Further, I have seen references over the years to fish/shark/bird sensitivity to metal/magnetic fields/polarized light/etc which lacks the basics of good science... regardless of field of specialty. That does not mean that future work might not improve on things, but I don't think this is mainstream material at this time.

 

[Simon Phoenix]

But entanglement ("spooky action at a distance")? That would surprise me (on the other hand Simon Phoenix said it would not surprise him).

If they relied on any "non-local" feature of entanglement that would kind of surprise me too :-)

I'm thinking here of the notion of using entanglement as a resource - much like quantum computers might be said to use entanglement as a resource. The gnarled hobgoblin of "spooky action at a distance" never rears its ugly head in this context. So the question is whether evolution has made use of some of these fundamental quantum processes to yield an advantage impossible if the world functioned classically. I think it intriguing. I think from what little I've read so far it would seem that nature has indeed exploited some of these processes.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Not that my opinion matters

It matters to me!
I wouldn't have posted about just any old science book and I was pleased to hear both positive and negative comments about it.
It was unfortunate that the "spooky action" thing got brought into the argument the 'distance' involved is only within molecular dimensions, I think. There was no inference about birds communicating spookily.
I wish it could be taken up somewhere reputable but the whole thing is a bit 'tainted' and many people will give it a miss accordingly. It's a catch 22 sort of thing.

 

[PeterDonis]

to ban cites from Nature, the argument would have to be made that Nature is a fringe journal

Not necessarily. To ban cites generally from Nature, yes, we would have to decide that it was a fringe journal (which it isn't). But the fact that a journal is not a fringe journal does not automatically mean that all cites from that journal are acceptable sources for all discussions. Being from a non-fringe journal is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient one.

In this particular case, since we are dealing with a subject that appears to be an active topic of research, and which tries to apply a theory from one domain (QM) to a very different domain (biology), I think we need to be very cautious about how much confidence we place in whatever the paper says. It's interesting speculation, but as far as I can tell from skimming the references provided, that's all it is at this point.

 

[UsableThought]

But the fact that a journal is not a fringe journal does not automatically mean that all cites from that journal are acceptable sources for all discussions. Being from a non-fringe journal is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient one.

My concern was that the word "unsuitable" applied to a reference is either ambiguous, depending on context; or else pejorative; if the latter, this might imply that a comment making use of such a reference has violated forum rules. So we are talking not merely about a source but about whether citing that source is a permissible behavior, with "not permissable" potentially leading to moderation. The other way to use "unsuitable" might be to describe a study or other source as not making a compelling argument. However this isn't typical usage for that word.

Be that as it may, @DrChinese has resolved any concern I might have had very nicely in his response #27, which you seem to be in concordance with. This paragraph in particular from that comment really cleared things up for me:

Not that my opinion matters: but if the speculative elements of posts are reasonably identified (so that the casual reader is alerted), then often further discussion can occur without hitting the fringes. Sometimes I comment on the quality of the references precisely so that discussion can continue, with caveats in mind. I think that many PF posters operate similarly. (If I really thought forum rules were being badly violated, I would simply report the post.)

 

[Benbenben]

"there is no known science in support, so they are wrong." That's a big difference from saying "there is no known science in support, but we are right anyway."

False bifurcation. Those may seem very different from the perspective of one arguing the truth of one side or the other, but the similarity is strong where it is important. Both claim certainty whether something is or isn't based not on what is known, but on a lack of knowledge.
.
No known, well vetted science supporting something could suggest it is very unlikely to be observed. It does not provide certainty of non-existence nor impossibility.