I What does this tricky quantum mechanics equation mean?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on a high school student's struggle to understand complex quantum mechanics concepts related to adaptive mutations for an article they are writing. A participant explains that quantum equations can be interpreted differently than classical ones, particularly highlighting the concept of superposition, where entities like "His" and "Arg" coexist in a quantum state. They emphasize that while the ideas presented in the student's article are speculative, there is established speculation regarding quantum decoherence's role in biochemical processes, such as chirality. The conversation encourages a deeper exploration of quantum mechanics in the context of biochemistry. Understanding these principles is crucial for grasping the implications of quantum mechanics in biological systems.
Ali Beladi
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I'm a current high school student and I’m aspiring to become a biochemist. I’m at the moment writing an article about adaptive mutations but there is a lot of tricky quantum mechanics in it which I simply don't get. I have asked everyone and got no answer until someone recommended to ask it in a forum. I would more than grateful if someone could actually explain to me what on Earth is going on in the diagram I have shown below. Here is also a link to the article if you want extra context or just give it a read because it is very interesting:https://www.academia.edu/13243691/A_quantum_mechanical_model_of_adaptive_mutation
1610275225600.png
 
Physics news on Phys.org
@Ali Beladi I'm too zaly to even type correctly ##-## I think that you're right to wonder ##-## I think that biochemical consequences of quantum decoherence may be a lot to try to digest all at once.
 
  • Like
Likes Ali Beladi
If you read the equations' symbols as if they were labels for "classically" or "common sensically" existing things, the equations would somewhat make sense. For example 'His" and "Arg" make sense classically, and something is either "His" or "Arg". However, in the quantum mechanical notation ##|\text{His} \rangle + |\text{Arg} \rangle##, it refers to something which is a superposition of "His" and "Arg", which is not possible classically. I think it goes without saying that the idea in the paper is quite speculative. However, for simpler things such as the chirality of sugars or ammonia, there is quite mainstream speculation that decoherence plays a role in explaining it (see section 2.2 of Zeh's article):

https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9905004
The Meaning of Decoherence
H. D. Zeh
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71, Demystifier, EPR and 1 other person
atyy said:
If you read the equations' symbols as if they were labels for "classically" or "common sensically" existing things, the equations would somewhat make sense. For example 'His" and "Arg" make sense classically, and something is either "His" or "Arg". However, in the quantum mechanical notation ##|\text{His} \rangle + |\text{Arg} \rangle##, it refers to something which is a superposition of "His" and "Arg", which is not possible classically. I think it goes without saying that the idea in the paper is quite speculative. However, for simpler things such as the chirality of sugars or ammonia, there is quite mainstream speculation that decoherence plays a role in explaining it (see section 2.2 of Zeh's article):

https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9905004
The Meaning of Decoherence
H. D. Zeh
Thanks A lot
 
We often see discussions about what QM and QFT mean, but hardly anything on just how fundamental they are to much of physics. To rectify that, see the following; https://www.cambridge.org/engage/api-gateway/coe/assets/orp/resource/item/66a6a6005101a2ffa86cdd48/original/a-derivation-of-maxwell-s-equations-from-first-principles.pdf 'Somewhat magically, if one then applies local gauge invariance to the Dirac Lagrangian, a field appears, and from this field it is possible to derive Maxwell’s...
I read Hanbury Brown and Twiss's experiment is using one beam but split into two to test their correlation. It said the traditional correlation test were using two beams........ This confused me, sorry. All the correlation tests I learnt such as Stern-Gerlash are using one beam? (Sorry if I am wrong) I was also told traditional interferometers are concerning about amplitude but Hanbury Brown and Twiss were concerning about intensity? Isn't the square of amplitude is the intensity? Please...
First, I need to check that I have the 3 notations correct for an inner product in finite vector spaces over a complex field; v* means: given the isomorphism V to V* then: (a) physicists and others: (u,v)=v*u ; linear in the second argument (b) some mathematicians: (u,v)=u*v; linear in the first argument. (c) bra-ket: <v|u>= (u,v) from (a), so v*u . <v|u> is linear in the second argument. If these are correct, then it would seem that <v|u> being linear in the second...

Similar threads