Physical theories often start out as theories which only embrace essential features of the macroscopic world, where their predictions depend on certain parameters that have to be either assumed or taken from experiments; as a result these parameters cannot be predicted by such theories. To understand why the parameters have the values they do, we have to go one level deeper—typically to smaller scales where the easiest processes to study are the ones at the lowest level. When the deeper level reduces the number of unknown parameters, we consider the theory to be complete and satisfactory. The level below conventional molecular biology is spanned by atomic and molecular structure and by quantum dynamics. However, it is also true that at the lowest level it becomes very difficult to grasp all the features of the molecular processes that occur in living systems such that the complexity of the numerous parameters that are involved make the endeavour a very intricate one. Information theory provides a powerful framework for extracting essential features of complicated processes of life, and then analyzing them in a systematic manner. In connection to the latter, quantum information biology is a new field of scientific inquiry in which information-theoretical tools and concepts are permitting to get insight into some of the most basic and yet unsolved questions of molecular biology.
Physical theories often start out as theories which only embrace essential features of the macroscopic world, where their predictions depend on certain parameters that have to be either assumed or taken from experiments; as a result these parameters cannot be predicted by such theories. To understand why the parameters have the values they do, we have to go one level deeper—typically to smaller scales where the easiest processes to study are the ones at the lowest level. When the deeper level reduces the number of unknown parameters, we consider the theory to be complete and satisfactory. The level below conventional molecular biology is spanned by atomic and molecular structure and by quantum dynamics. However, it is also true that at the lowest level it becomes very difficult to grasp all the features of the molecular processes that occur in living systems such that the complexity of the numerous parameters that are involved make the endeavour a very intricate one. Information theory provides a powerful framework for extracting essential features of complicated processes of life, and then analyzing them in a systematic manner. In connection to the latter, quantum information biology is a new field of scientific inquiry in which information-theoretical tools and concepts are permitting to get insight into some of the most basic and yet unsolved questions of molecular biology.
Introduction Quantum information theory is the study of how the peculiar features of quantum mechanics can be exploited for the purposes of information processing and transmission. A central theme of such a study is the ways in which quantum mechanics opens up possibilities that go beyond what can be achieved classically. This has in turn led to a renewed interest in, and a new perspective on, the differences between the classical and the quantum. Although much of the work along these lines has been motivated by quantum information theory – and some of it has been motivated by the conviction that quantum theory is essentially about possibilities of information processing and transmission – the results obtained, and the frameworks developed, have interest even for those of us who are not of that conviction. Indeed, much of the recent work echoes, and builds upon, work that predates the inception of quantum information theory. The significance of such work extends beyond the setting of quantum information theory; the work done on distinguishing the quantum from the classical in the context of frameworks that embrace both is something worthy of the attention of anyone interested in the foundational issues surrounding quantum theory. One of the striking features of quantum mechanics lies in its probabilistic character. A quantum state yields, not a definite prediction of the outcome of an experiment, but a probability measure on the space of possible outcomes. Of course, probabilities occur also in a classical context.
When the revolutionary conceptual structure for the description of the physical world which we know as quantum mechanics was first formulated nearly 90 years ago, and its predictions tested in the laboratory, most of the experiments in question were on systems which were both very well characterized and reasonably well isolated from their environments, such as single electrons and atoms, small molecules and near-perfect crystalline solids. While from the very start most physicists have taken it for granted that the formalism of quantum mechanics, when combined with appropriate system-specific information, can “in principle” account for all phenomena occurring in the physical world, including those usually regarded as the subject-matter of biology, until quite recently the overwhelmingly majority opinion has been that in a biological context the role of quantum theory is confined to elucidating the equilibrium structures of the relevant molecules and their reaction processes, and that subtle phenomena such as superposition and entanglement, of which we can now routinely exhibit spectacular effects at the level of a few well-isolated photons or atoms, play at most a very indirect role in any phenomena of biological interest. A major reason conventionally given for this view has been that biological systems, at least working ones, are by their very nature “warm and wet” – a phrase which in the physicist's lexicon translates to “prone to massive decoherence”; it looks as though any interesting superposition, say of different energy eigenstates of one's system, would be rapidly decohered by the ever-present, and usually microscopically very complex, environment.
Quantum physics and biology have long been regarded as unrelated disciplines, describing nature at the inanimate microlevel on the one hand and living species on the other hand. Over the past decades the life sciences have succeeded in providing ever more and refined explanations of macroscopic phenomena that were based on an improved understanding of molecular structures and mechanisms. Simultaneously, quantum physics, originally rooted in a world-view of quantum coherences, entanglement, and other nonclassical effects, has been heading toward systems of increasing complexity. The present perspective article shall serve as a "pedestrian guide" to the growing interconnections between the two fields. We recapitulate the generic and sometimes unintuitive characteristics of quantum physics and point to a number of applications in the life sciences. We discuss our criteria for a future "quantum biology," its current status, recent experimental progress, and also the restrictions that nature imposes on bold extrapolations of quantum theory to macroscopic phenomena.
ENGLISH ABSTRACT: What are the information processing capabilities of physical systems? As recently as the first half of the 20th century this question did not even have a definite meaning. What is information, and how would one process it? It took the development of theories of computing (in the 1930s) and information (late in the 1940s) for us to formulate mathematically what it means to compute or communicate. Yet these theories were abstract, based on axiomatic mathematics: what did physical systems have to do with these axioms? Rolf Landauer had the essential insight - "Information is physical" - that information is always encoded in the state of a physical system, whose dynamics on a microscopic level are well-described by quantum physics. This means that we cannot discuss information without discussing how it is represented, and how nature dictates it should behave. Wigner considered the situation from another perspective when he wrote about "the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences". Why are the computational techniques of mathematics so astonishingly useful in describing the physical world [1]? One might begin to suspect foul play in the universe's operating principles. Interesting insights into the physics of information accumulated through the 1970s and 1980s - most sensationally in the proposal for a "quantum computer". If we were to mark a particular year in which an explosion of interest took place in information physics, that year would have to be 1994, when Shor showed that a problem of practical interest (factorisation of integers) could be solved easily on a quantum computer. But the applications of information in physics - and vice versa - have been far more widespread than this popular discovery. These applications range from improved experimental technology, more sophisticated measurement techniques, methods for characterising the quantum/classical boundary, tools for quantum chaos, and deeper insight into quantum theory and nature. In this thesis I present a short review of ideas in quantum information theory. The first chapter contains introductory material, sketching the central ideas of probability and information theory. Quantum mechanics is presented at the level of advanced undergraduate knowledge, together with some useful tools for quantum mechanics of open systems. In the second chapter I outline how classical information is represented in quantum systems and what this means for agents trying to extract information from these systems. The final chapter presents a new resource: quantum information. This resource has some bewildering applications which have been discovered in the last ten years, and continually presents us with unexpected insights into quantum theory and the universe.
The file on this site provides the slides for a lecture given in Hangzhou in May 2018, and the lecture itself is available at the URL beginning 'sms' in the set of links provided in connection with this item. It is commonly assumed that regular physics underpins biology. Here it is proposed, in a synthesis of ideas by various authors, that in reality structures and mechanisms of a biological character underpin the world studied by physicists, in principle supplying detail in the domain that according to regular physics is of an indeterminate character. In regular physics mathematical equations are primary, but this constraint leads to problems with reconciling theory and reality. Biology on the other hand typically does not characterise nature in quantitative terms, instead investigating in detail important complex interrelationships between parts, leading to an understanding of the systems concerned that is in some respects beyond that which prevails in regular physics. It makes contact with quantum physics in various ways, for example in that both involve interactions between observer and observed, an insight that explains what is special about processes involving observation, justifying in the quantum physics context the replacement of the unphysical many-worlds picture by one involving collapse. The link with biology furthermore clarifies Wheeler’s suggestion that a multiplicity of observations can lead to the ‘fabrication of form’, including the insight that this process depends on very specific ‘structures with power’ related to the 'semiotic scaffolding' of the application of sign theory to biology known as biosemiotics. The observer-observed 'circle' of Wheeler and Yardley is a special case of a more general phenomenon, oppositional dynamics, related to the 'intra-action' of Barad's Agential Realism, involving cooperating systems such as mind and matter, abstract and concrete, observer and observed, that preserve their identities while interacting with one another in such a way as to act as a unit. A third system may also be involved, the mediating system of Peirce linking the two together. Such a situation of changing connections and separations may plausibly lead in the future to an understanding of how complex systems are able to evolve to produce 'life, the universe and everything'. (Added 1 July 2018) The general structure proposed here as an alternative to a mathematics-based physics can be usefully characterised by relating it to different disciplines and the specialised concepts utilised therein. In theoretical physics, the test for the correctness of a theory typically involves numerical predictions, corresponding to which theories are expressed in terms of equations, that is to say assertions that two quantities have identical values. Equations have a lesser significance in biology which typically talks in terms of functional mechanisms, dependent for example on details of chemistry and concepts such as genes, natural selection, signals and geometrical or topologically motivated concepts such as the interconnections between systems and the unfolding of DNA. Biosemiotics adds to this the concept of signs and their interpretation, implying novel concepts such as semiotic scaffolding and the semiosphere, code duality, and appreciation of the different types of signs, including symbols and their capacity for abstraction and use in language systems. Circular Theory adds to this picture, as do the ideas of Barad, considerations such as the idea of oppositional dynamics. The proposals in this lecture can be regarded as the idea that concepts such as those deriving from biosemiotics have more general applicability than just conventional biology and may apply, in some circumstances, to nonlinear systems generally, including the domain new to science hypothesised to underlie the phenomena of present-day physics. The task then has to be to restore the mathematical aspect presumed, in this picture, not to be fundamental as it is in conventional theory. Deacon has invoked a complex sequence of evolutionary steps to account for the emergence over time of human language systems, and correspondingly mathematical behaviour can be subsumed under the general evolutionary mechanisms of biosemiotics (cf. also the proposals of Davis and Hersh regarding the nature of mathematics), so that the mathematical behaviour of physical systems is consistent with the proposed scheme. In conclusion, it is suggested that theoretical physicists should cease expecting to find some universal mathematical ‘theory of everything’, and focus instead on understanding in more detail complex systems exhibiting behaviour of a biological character, extending existing understanding. This may in time provide a more fruitful understanding of the natural world than does the regular approach. The essential concepts have an observational basis from both biology and the little-known discipline of cymatics (a discipline concerned with the remarkable patterns that specific waveforms can give rise to), while again computer simulations also offer promise in providing insight into the complex behaviours involved in the above proposals. References Jesper Hoffmeyer, Semiotic Scaffolding of Living Systems. Commens, a Digital Companion to C. S. Peirce (on Commens web site). Terrence Deacon, The Symbolic Species, W.W. Norton & Co. Karen Barad, Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning, Duke University Press. Philip Davis and Reuben Hersh, The Mathematical Experience, Penguin. Ilexa Yardley, Circular Theory.
Introduction Key features of quantum mechanics are the uncertainty principle, wave–particle duality, quantization of energies and the modification of classical probability laws. Biology is concerned with how natural systems function – from understanding how genetically coded information is replicated, to attaining a mechanistic model for complex multistep reactions. Recently researchers have been asking whether quantum mechanics, normally the domain of physics, is also needed to understand some biological processes. This field includes fascinating developments in theory and experiment, as well as multidisciplinary discussion, and the state-of-the-art is documented in this book. Erwin Schrödinger, in his famous book What is Life ? (Schrödinger, 1944), noted that quantum mechanics accounts for the stability of living things and their cellular processes because of our understanding, via quantum mechanics, of the stability and structure of molecules. The fact that quantum effects create, sometimes large, energy gaps between different states of a chemical system is also important. Such energy gaps, between electronic energy levels, enable living organisms to capture and store the energy carried from the sun by photons, and to visualize the world around them via optically induced chemical reactions. Davydov's view in Biology and Quantum Mechanics (Davydov, 1982) was that quantum mechanics is most relevant for isolated systems in pure states and therefore is of little importance for biological systems that are in statistical states at thermal equilibrium.