Is There Randomness in the Process of Falling Objects?

In summary, the conversation focused on the topic of quantum genetics and whether there is a strong link between quantum effects and genetics. Some participants shared links to a book and article on the subject, while others expressed skepticism towards the idea. There was also a discussion on the role of quantum effects in evolution and consciousness. Overall, the general consensus was that while there may be some quantum effects in specific functions, they are not significant in the larger context of genetics and evolution. The idea of "quantum genetics" was also seen by some as a potential boondoggle.
  • #1
Nikola Kolev
7
0
Hey guys
Do you have some info about quantum...genetics? Cuz I've seen a book on it but it's £50 so I read an article about some professor at MIT interviewing his about this. So do you have any info, knowledge, material on that subject? Thanks.
 
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #2
Do you have links to the book or article? I have not heard of such a thing, and I am very skeptical of the claim that quantum effects would have effects on genetics.
 
  • #3
Historically there has always been a strong link between Quantum effects and genetics. A good introductory place to start with this would be Schrodinger's 'What is Life'
http://whatislife.stanford.edu/LoCo_files/What-is-Life.pdf[/URL] .
The link between genetics and quantum mechanics is still very strong.

An interesting paper and an example of the type of work being done is: Quantum Effects and Genetic Code: Dynamics and Information Transfer in DNA Replication [URL]http://arxiv.org/ftp/q-bio/papers/0611/0611009.pdf[/URL]

A more recent example in this regard from Nature is 'On quantum effects in a theory of biological evolution' [URL]http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/120306/srep00302/full/srep00302.html[/URL]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes Nikola Kolev
  • #4
Genetic drift involves randomness,QM hints at what randomness is.
I go with natural selection being the main determinator in evolution, and therefore genetics.
Things going on at the subatomic level play a part in randomness, but I don't think it is greatly significant.
 
  • #6
rootone said:
Genetic drift involves randomness,QM hints at what randomness is.
I go with natural selection being the main determinator in evolution, and therefore genetics.
Things going on at the subatomic level play a part in randomness, but I don't think it is greatly significant.

I don't know to what degree mutation is idealistically random in the QM sense; it could very well be pseudo-random - a complex system of deterministic behavior sensitive to perturbation. Both probably play a role.
 
  • #8
Nikola Kolev said:
Sometimes firstly insignificant concepts lead to much bigger picture.

Yes, but evolution is a process on classical large systems (according to population genetics tremendously large) so quantum effects are bound to be insignificant.

That said, there are quantum effects in specific functions, as chemistry is emergent on quantum physics. (E.g. it seems verified that oxidizing photosynthesis has quantum effects.) But those are traits rather than genetics. So while I wouldn't want to discourage anyone who asks for information, and/or make unwarranted claims, I would say that the expected information is limited at best. I think there are comments on this thread which agree.

I'm not even sure where to go with the larger idea. As shown by examples, the label 'quantum' is often used as a boondoggle. And the products end up disparate as here.

- The Ars Technica article _criticizes_ the use as boondoggle overreach.

- I would have to read the "Quantum Genetics" book of Stcherbic and Buchatsky of course. But do they really predict something worthwhile, or is it boondoggle overreach? In general the information content of protein functionality is unrelated to the sequence information of their genes, which is why people can't easily elucidate folding and function from sequence. And it is hence unrelated to evolutionary understanding.

- The "Quantum Evolution" book of McFadden seems to be boondoggle overreach for sure. The quoted Davies seem to be a deist [from his books, I don't know how he characterizes himself], and that is likely why he is interested in speculating in philosophic/theologian 'free will'* as opposed to our biochemical machine knowledge of the brain precluding any such magic action. The action of the brain/body complex is entirely decided by its physics, and as a classic system is deterministic. The same goes for consciousness. [If one is interested in the first, what I know of, biologically motivated and sound theory of consciousness, I would go to Graziano. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Graziano ]

* I should be careful to distinguish those magic 'intentional' ideas from the effective theory of folk psychology, where it works to interpret the complex outcome of social actions as "free will". It works, until you test it in fRMI and see how the brain-body complex sets up an action up to 7 seconds before it becomes "aware" of what it is doing.
 
Last edited:
  • #9
Torbjorn_L said:
Yes, but evolution is a process on classical large systems (according to population genetics tremendously large) so quantum effects are bound to be insignificant.

That said, there are quantum effects in specific functions, as chemistry is emergent on quantum physics. (E.g. it seems verified that oxidizing photosynthesis has quantum effects.) But those are traits rather than genetics. So while I wouldn't want to discourage anyone who asks for information, and/or make unwarranted claims, I would say that the expected information is limited at best. I think there are comments on this thread which agree.

I'm not even sure where to go with the larger idea. As shown by examples, the label 'quantum' is often used as a boondoggle. And the products end up disparate as here.

- The Ars Technica article _criticizes_ the use as boondoggle overreach.

- I would have to read the "Quantum Genetics" book of Stcherbic and Buchatsky of course. But do they really predict something worthwhile, or is it boondoggle overreach? In general the information content of protein functionality is unrelated to the sequence information of their genes, which is why people can't easily elucidate folding and function from sequence. And it is hence unrelated to evolutionary understanding.

- The "Quantum Evolution" book of McFadden seems to be boondoggle overreach for sure. The quoted Davies seem to be a deist [from his books, I don't know how he characterizes himself], and that is likely why he is interested in speculating in philosophic/theologian 'free will'* as opposed to our biochemical machine knowledge of the brain precluding any such magic action. The action of the brain/body complex is entirely decided by its physics, and as a classic system is deterministic. The same goes for consciousness. [If one is interested in the first, what I know of, biologically motivated and sound theory of consciousness, I would go to Graziano. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Graziano ]

* I should be careful to distinguish those magic 'intentional' ideas from the effective theory of folk psychology, where it works to interpret the complex outcome of social actions as "free will". It works, until you test it in fRMI and see how the brain-body complex sets up an action up to 7 seconds before it becomes "aware" of what it is doing.
I have never said anything about evolution but asked is there such thing as quantum genetics, starting the thread.
You should've quoted Gerinski (#7), too. No self- esteemed scientist would fall into creationists/theologists/ deists or any other hardcore Christians understandings of
science. Don't try to fight over those, you only lose your patience and win stress. Thanks for the Wiki article, I reccomend you to read the the article about belief in the mazagine 'New Scientist', issue 3015 for the last para.
 
  • #10
I just want to clarify about the book of McFadden I quoted on #7, it has nothing to do about deism, creationism, theology etc, whatever you may think from the Paul Davies quote.
What McFadden speculates is, roughly speaking, that we know that some steps in the supposed ladder of complexity increase from non-biological chemistry to biological one seem very unlikely to have happened by chance and at present we do not know of any plausible mechanism how some of those steps could reasonably happen in a relatively short time. He invokes quantum superposition and the anthropic principle as a possible mechanism. In quantum superposition, configurations which are unlikely are present in the mix. There is a small probability that they may become actual outcomes of an interaction. He then states that since only those unlikely outcomes give rise to life, it is not surprising that we find ourselves in a world where those unlikely events happened.
 
  • #11
I will read these articles but I think other posters have already said that evolution, organisms living, dying reproducing cells and DNA are very large systems of particles
I am not sure how Quantum effects such as superposition, entanglement etc would feature or be measured as anything separate from the normal chemistry of the cell.
Perhaps one of the quantum guys on here could comment about decoherence nullifying any quantum effects?
 
  • #12
I'm more like to relate useful information from both genetics and qm
 
  • #13
  • "I should be careful to distinguish those magic 'intentional' ideas from the effective theory of folk psychology, where it works to interpret the complex outcome of social actions as "free will". It works, until you test it in fRMI and see how the brain-body complex sets up an action up to 7 seconds before it becomes "aware" of what it is doing."
Such an experiment necessarily begins with dualism and ends without it. Even if you could argue that dualism is testable, the experiment still can't be a test because a test result can't be predetermined. Obviously the experiment contributed a result, but its label as a "test" prevents the result from being used.

To unlock the result, the experiment has to be retroactively assigned another purpose than testing. Going into the experiment, the prior assumption of dualism allowed "awareness" to be considered transcendent, and thus undefined and not directly measurable. So the time at which awareness was said to occur could only have been the time of some event that according to dualism was the corrolate of awareness. After dualism is removed, the label "corrolate" becomes invalid, and the identification of a particular event as awareness is up for grabs. Therefore, the newly assigned purpose of the experiment is as a search for a new definition of "awareness". According to dualism, it was argued that awareness was the first event that would be detected. We lost the argument, but in return we gained something even better: a free definition! We can now say that "awareness" is defined as "the brain-body complex setting up an action".

Free will was taken out of the realm of "magic" as soon as physical randomness was discovered. Free will is simply the ability to rapidly sift through a constant barrage of random thoughts to find snippets that remind you of something you might want to do. It should've been obvious for over fifty years that determinism is faith-based and randomness is evidence-based. But William Dembski, through his "Conservation of Information" campaign, pulled a switcheroo on the scientific community.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
Well quantum effects do determine how chemistry works so obviously QM is extremely important for all molecules in the universe. QM properties presumably determine, for instance, the polarity of water by describing a probabilistic distribution of electrons across the molecule. There are also definitely QM processes that occur during photosynthesis as the energy of light is used to cause an atp or glucose molecule or whatever to form.
 
  • #15
To keep this within our current guidelines, please be sure to cite the accepted sources for any statements made. If it is an accepted textbook, please quote the specific page and paragraph, if it is a study, please link to the study in the peer reviewed journal.

Thank you.
 
  • #16
David Horgan said:
Historically there has always been a strong link between Quantum effects and genetics. A good introductory place to start with this would be Schrodinger's 'What is Life'
http://whatislife.stanford.edu/LoCo_files/What-is-Life.pdf[/URL] .
The link between genetics and quantum mechanics is still very strong.

An interesting paper and an example of the type of work being done is: Quantum Effects and Genetic Code: Dynamics and Information Transfer in DNA Replication [URL]http://arxiv.org/ftp/q-bio/papers/0611/0611009.pdf[/URL]

A more recent example in this regard from Nature is 'On quantum effects in a theory of biological evolution' [URL]http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/120306/srep00302/full/srep00302.html[/URL][/QUOTE]

I would not say that this has something to do with quantummechanics. He uses in his paper some words that let us think of quantummechanics. harmonic oscilator, tunneling etc. We use often modells for coupled pendulum as harmoic oscilators to get a non linear analysis to describe attractors and trajactors in determinstic chaostheory and can make a computer model with algorithm to describe some phenomena as approximation.

I think what is described there is more or less the normal physical chemistry of H* in a equilibrium system. Nothing really to call it quantum genetics. I think the authors want to call it Quantum ... because it is much more interesting especially for Esoteric People and God believers, who like the Quantumtheory as if it is a prove for scientific whatever. There are a lot books out there who call itself Quantum medicine etc but has nothing to do with Quantum mechanics in out physics view.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes Ygggdrasil
  • #17
serp777 said:
Well quantum effects do determine how chemistry works so obviously QM is extremely important for all molecules in the universe. QM properties presumably determine, for instance, the polarity of water by describing a probabilistic distribution of electrons across the molecule. There are also definitely QM processes that occur during photosynthesis as the energy of light is used to cause an atp or glucose molecule or whatever to form.

In discussions of whether QM is significant or not, we dismiss cases that don't actually require QM formalism (because their classical formulations are sufficient).
 
  • Like
Likes Torbjorn_L
  • #18
Nikola Kolev said:
I have never said anything about evolution but asked is there such thing as quantum genetics, starting the thread.

And my response was that it is a boondoglle.

Nikola Kolev said:
You should've quoted Gerinski (#7), too. No self- esteemed scientist would fall into creationists/theologists/ deists or any other hardcore Christians understandings of
science. Don't try to fight over those, you only lose your patience and win stress. Thanks for the Wiki article, I reccomend you to read the the article about belief in the mazagine 'New Scientist', issue 3015 for the last para.

Thanks for the reference, but I don't read NS for the same reason why I don't think "Quantum Genetics" is a descriptive term.

Gerinski said:
I just want to clarify about the book of McFadden I quoted on #7, it has nothing to do about deism, creationism, theology etc, whatever you may think from the Paul Davies quote.
What McFadden speculates is, roughly speaking, that we know that some steps in the supposed ladder of complexity increase from non-biological chemistry to biological one seem very unlikely to have happened by chance and at present we do not know of any plausible mechanism how some of those steps could reasonably happen in a relatively short time. He invokes quantum superposition and the anthropic principle as a possible mechanism. In quantum superposition, configurations which are unlikely are present in the mix. There is a small probability that they may become actual outcomes of an interaction. He then states that since only those unlikely outcomes give rise to life, it is not surprising that we find ourselves in a world where those unlikely events happened.

I would agree with McFadden on that emergence of life didn't happen by chance, since the best theory (in that sense) of emergence, the vent theory, show that evolution happened - we have homologous traits with Hadean Earth geophysical systems. So whatever happened, it happened by processes.

I would disagree with McFadden on the rest as he makes the same mistake that Koonin et al did with the corresponding classical idea in their paper. Selection bias ("anthropics") selects the posterior likeliest events, not the unlikely. The latter is the same idea as the religious anthropic idea, their confusing prior probabilities with posterior likelihoods in order to attack science. Maybe McFadden does not have religious sympathies as Davies, but he emulates them well!
 
  • #19
Pythagorean said:
In discussions of whether QM is significant or not, we dismiss cases that don't actually require QM formalism (because their classical formulations are sufficient).

So you're saying something like photosynthesis has a classical formulation that doesn't depend on QM formalism? The absorption of light by a molecule, which then causes a disturbance in the electrical properties and chemical bonds of the molecule, leads to the formation of a glucose molecule from two separate molecules; photosynthesis therefore relies on properties of quantum mechanics. Furthermore, simulations of protein folding, like the folding @ home project, has to take into account several different quantum phenomena in order to accurately predict how protein folding occurs, and a protein is significantly smaller that a strand of DNA.
 
  • #20
serp777 said:
So you're saying something like photosynthesis has a classical formulation that doesn't depend on QM formalism? The absorption of light by a molecule, which then causes a disturbance in the electrical properties and chemical bonds of the molecule leading to the formation of a glucose molecule from two separate molecules would 100% rely on properties of quantum mechanics. Furthermore, simulations of protein folding, like the folding @ home project, has to take into account several different quantum phenomena in order to accurately predict how protein folding occurs, and a protein is significantly smaller that a strand of DNA.
Please cite your sources.
 
  • #21
Torbjorn_L said:
And my response was that it is a boondoglle.
Thanks for the reference, but I don't read NS for the same reason why I don't think "Quantum Genetics" is a descriptive term.
I would agree with McFadden on that emergence of life didn't happen by chance, since the best theory (in that sense) of emergence, the vent theory, show that evolution happened - we have homologous traits with Hadean Earth geophysical systems. So whatever happened, it happened by processes.

I would disagree with McFadden on the rest as he makes the same mistake that Koonin et al did with the corresponding classical idea in their paper. Selection bias ("anthropics") selects the posterior likeliest events, not the unlikely. The latter is the same idea as the religious anthropic idea, their confusing prior probabilities with posterior likelihoods in order to attack science. Maybe McFadden does not have religious sympathies as Davies, but he emulates them well!
No idea what you are talking about, please cite your sources.
 
  • #22
Evo said:
Please cite your sources.

Hhere you go:

" In 2005, Folding@home tested a new quantum mechanical method that improved upon prior simulation methods, and which may be useful for future computational studies of collagen. Although researchers have used Folding@home to study collagen folding and misfolding, the interest stands as a pilot project compared to Alzheimer's and Huntington's research."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folding@home

I cited wikipedia since i don't have complete access to some of the articles which require a monthly fee."
Quantum mechanics finally explains why protein folding depends on temperature in such a strange way."
https://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=4431

The famous Arrhenius relationship states that things happen faster as they got hotter. In chemistry, that’s generally true but there’s an important exception: the speed at which proteins fold into their functional shape."

And here we have quantum mechanics explaining the efficiency of photosynthesis:

http://phys.org/news/2014-01-quantum-mechanics-efficiency-photosynthesis.html
 
Last edited:
  • #23
Torbjorn_L said:
And my response was that it is a boondoglle.
Thanks for the reference, but I don't read NS for the same reason why I don't think "Quantum Genetics" is a descriptive term.
I would agree with McFadden on that emergence of life didn't happen by chance, since the best theory (in that sense) of emergence, the vent theory, show that evolution happened - we have homologous traits with Hadean Earth geophysical systems. So whatever happened, it happened by processes.

I would disagree with McFadden on the rest as he makes the same mistake that Koonin et al did with the corresponding classical idea in their paper. Selection bias ("anthropics") selects the posterior likeliest events, not the unlikely. The latter is the same idea as the religious anthropic idea, their confusing prior probabilities with posterior likelihoods in order to attack science. Maybe McFadden does not have religious sympathies as Davies, but he emulates them well!

How did it not happen by chance? Unless you believe in predetermination, which is basically disproved by QM, that seems like an incredibly big claim. At some point its likely a bunch of large organic molecules were frothing around with some high temperatures and or reactive chemicals, which caused one molecule to form with another to form the first self replicating molecule. This process happens purely by chance it seems like.
 
  • Like
Likes Evo
  • #24
serp777 said:
So you're saying something like photosynthesis has a classical formulation that doesn't depend on QM formalism?

I didn't say that. In fact, photosynthesis is one of the rare cases that we do actually see a significant quantum effect in biological systems.
 
  • #25
Pythagorean said:
I didn't say that. In fact, photosynthesis is one of the rare cases that we do actually see a significant quantum effect in biological systems.
Ok fair enough, but i also provided some evidence that protein folding depends on quantum mechanics; projects like folding @home use quantum physics in their simulations in order to get better results like using QM to make improved predictions like my collagen example. And if protein folding relies on quantum physics then a logical conclusion would be so does DNA since proteins are just expressions of DNA chunks. Given the small scale that genetics works on, I can't imagine how quantum mechanics doesn't play an integral role in many bodily systems. I mean quantum mechanics has important implication for computer chips of the same size naturally so its a reasonable assertion to say qm has implications for genetics as well.
 
  • #26
Honestly, the protein literature you sourced wasn't very definitive and there were challenges in the comments. One paper usually isn't enough; give it ten years and 20 papers.
 
  • Like
Likes Evo
  • #27
serp777 said:
How did it not happen by chance?

It happened by process. Does a dropped object fall by chance? The question is how much contingency, i.e. stochasticity, is in a process.
 
  • #28
Torbjorn_L said:
It happened by process. Does a dropped object fall by chance? The question is how much contingency, i.e. stochasticity, is in a process.

Right. You drop a handful of tic tacs on the table and you won't be able to repeat the pattern the next time you drop a handful. The physics of falling, colliding tic tacs is quite classical, but it's so sensitive to initial conditions that you'll never get the same result twice.
 

1. What is quantum genetics information?

Quantum genetics information refers to the study of the relationship between quantum mechanics and genetics. It explores how quantum processes, such as superposition and entanglement, play a role in the behavior and function of genes and DNA.

2. How does quantum genetics information differ from traditional genetics?

Traditional genetics focuses on the physical and chemical aspects of DNA and its role in inheritance. Quantum genetics, on the other hand, takes into account the quantum nature of particles and how they influence genetic processes.

3. What are some potential applications of quantum genetics information?

Some potential applications include understanding the mechanism of genetic mutations, developing more accurate gene editing techniques, and creating quantum-inspired algorithms for analyzing genetic data.

4. Are there any controversies surrounding quantum genetics information?

Yes, there are some controversies surrounding the field. Some scientists argue that quantum effects are not significant enough to have a major impact on genetics, while others believe that quantum processes play a crucial role in understanding genetic processes.

5. What are the current limitations of studying quantum genetics information?

One major limitation is that quantum effects are difficult to observe and measure in biological systems. Additionally, there is still much research needed to fully understand how quantum mechanics and genetics interact, making it a challenging field to study.

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
672
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
8
Views
431
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
698
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
11
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
976
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
2
Views
914
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
11
Views
355
Back
Top