Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

International Journal of Quantum Chemistry

The emergence of structure and organization from physical systems

F. David Peat

Published Jun 18, 2009• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

It is indicated that quantum mechanics contains provision for treatment of “organization” and dynamical structure which is more appropriate than that normally employed. This description makes use of observables, to superselection operators, which are stable to fluctuations and perturbations of the system. It is suggested that they may account for structure in a biological system, produced by the “pumping” of collective modes by the environment. It is noted that certain forms of structure may be incompatible, within the same system.

DOI
10.1002/qua.560080725

Related papers

Foreword

Tony Leggett

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.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Aug 6, 2014•0 citations

Quantum fluctuations and life

P. C. W. Davies, Australian Centre For Astrobiology

There have been many claims that quantum mechanics plays a key role in the origin and/or operation of biological organisms, beyond merely providing the basis for the shapes and sizes of biological molecules and their chemical affinities. These range from Schrödinger’s suggestion that quantum fluctuations produce mutations, to Hameroff and Penrose’s conjecture that quantum coherence in microtubules is linked to consciousness. I review some of these claims in this paper, and discuss the serious problem of decoherence. I advance some further conjectures about quantum information processing in bio-systems. Some possible experiments are suggested.

•Jan 1, 2004•10 citations

Dynamic Harmony Structural Stress-Test Series — Paper 3: Unified Dynamics for Microscopic and Macroscopic Systems

James Scott

Dynamic Harmony Structural Stress-Test Series. This paper evaluates the problem of unifying microscopic quantum dynamics with macroscopic classical behavior. The analysis examines whether proposed mechanisms linking these scales satisfy the structural conditions required for genuine emergence within the Dynamic Harmony framework. Using the Phase Non-Substitutability Test introduced in Paper 0 and the architectural boundary criterion developed in Paper 0B, the paper analyzes whether the transition from microscopic quantum dynamics to macroscopic classical systems represents a true architectural redefinition or remains a configurational rearrangement within an existing state space. The analysis clarifies the structural conditions under which unified dynamical descriptions can account for the emergence of stable macroscopic organization. This paper forms part of the Dynamic Harmony Structural Stress-Test Series, a research program that evaluates major theories of emergence across physics, biology, and complex systems through adversarial structural analysis.

•Mar 13, 2026•0 citations

The role of quantum mechanics in cognition-based evolution

Perry Marshall

In 2021 I noted that in all information-based systems we understand, Cognition creates Code, which controls Chemical reactions. Known agents write software which controls hardware, and not the other way around. I proposed the same is true in all of biology. Though the textbook description of cause and effect in biology proposes the reverse, that Chemical reactions produce Code from which Cognition emerges, there are no examples in the literature demonstrating either step. A mathematical proof for the first step, cognition generating code, is based on Turing's halting problem. The second step, code controlling chemical reactions, is the role of the genetic code. Thus a central question in biology: What is the nature and source of cognition? In this paper I propose a relationship between biology and Quantum Mechanics (QM), hypothesizing that the same principle that enables an observer to collapse a wave function also grants biology its agency: the organism's ability to act on the world instead of merely being a passive recipient. Just as all living cells are cognitive (Shapiro 2021, 2007; McClintock 1984; Lyon 2015; Levin 2019; Pascal and Pross, 2022), I propose humans are quantum observers because we are made of cells and all cells are observers. This supports the century-old view that in QM, the observer does not merely record the event but plays a fundamental role in its outcome.The classical world is driven by laws, which are deductive; the quantum world is driven by choices, which are inductive. When the two are combined, they form the master feedback loop of perception and action for all biology. In this paper I apply basic definitions of induction, deduction and computation to known properties of QM to show that the organism altering itself (and its environment) is a whole shaping its parts. It is not merely parts comprising a whole. I propose that an observer collapsing the wave function is the physical mechanism for producing negentropy. The way forward in solving the information problem in biology is understanding the relationship between cognition and QM.

Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology•May 2, 2023•11 citations

Alternative formulations of quantum theory

Keith Hannabuss

Abstract The mathematical description of quantum theory rests on the idea of states and observables. However, the dynamical description of these two described in Section 6.4 is quite different.

•Mar 20, 1997•0 citations

States and Observables

Huzihiro Araki

Abstract The states and the observables are basic concepts in the description of a physical system and their description has undergone a drastic fundamental change in the transition from the classical theory to the quantum theory.

•Oct 21, 1999•0 citations
It is indicated that quantum mechanics contains provision for treatment of “organization” and dynamical structure which is more appropriate than that normally employed. This description makes use of observables, to superselection operators, which are stable to fluctuations and perturbations of the system. It is suggested that they may account for structure in a biological system, produced by the “pumping” of collective modes by the environment. It is noted that certain forms of structure may be incompatible, within the same system.
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.
There have been many claims that quantum mechanics plays a key role in the origin and/or operation of biological organisms, beyond merely providing the basis for the shapes and sizes of biological molecules and their chemical affinities. These range from Schrödinger’s suggestion that quantum fluctuations produce mutations, to Hameroff and Penrose’s conjecture that quantum coherence in microtubules is linked to consciousness. I review some of these claims in this paper, and discuss the serious problem of decoherence. I advance some further conjectures about quantum information processing in bio-systems. Some possible experiments are suggested.
Dynamic Harmony Structural Stress-Test Series. This paper evaluates the problem of unifying microscopic quantum dynamics with macroscopic classical behavior. The analysis examines whether proposed mechanisms linking these scales satisfy the structural conditions required for genuine emergence within the Dynamic Harmony framework. Using the Phase Non-Substitutability Test introduced in Paper 0 and the architectural boundary criterion developed in Paper 0B, the paper analyzes whether the transition from microscopic quantum dynamics to macroscopic classical systems represents a true architectural redefinition or remains a configurational rearrangement within an existing state space. The analysis clarifies the structural conditions under which unified dynamical descriptions can account for the emergence of stable macroscopic organization. This paper forms part of the Dynamic Harmony Structural Stress-Test Series, a research program that evaluates major theories of emergence across physics, biology, and complex systems through adversarial structural analysis.
In 2021 I noted that in all information-based systems we understand, Cognition creates Code, which controls Chemical reactions. Known agents write software which controls hardware, and not the other way around. I proposed the same is true in all of biology. Though the textbook description of cause and effect in biology proposes the reverse, that Chemical reactions produce Code from which Cognition emerges, there are no examples in the literature demonstrating either step. A mathematical proof for the first step, cognition generating code, is based on Turing's halting problem. The second step, code controlling chemical reactions, is the role of the genetic code. Thus a central question in biology: What is the nature and source of cognition? In this paper I propose a relationship between biology and Quantum Mechanics (QM), hypothesizing that the same principle that enables an observer to collapse a wave function also grants biology its agency: the organism's ability to act on the world instead of merely being a passive recipient. Just as all living cells are cognitive (Shapiro 2021, 2007; McClintock 1984; Lyon 2015; Levin 2019; Pascal and Pross, 2022), I propose humans are quantum observers because we are made of cells and all cells are observers. This supports the century-old view that in QM, the observer does not merely record the event but plays a fundamental role in its outcome.The classical world is driven by laws, which are deductive; the quantum world is driven by choices, which are inductive. When the two are combined, they form the master feedback loop of perception and action for all biology. In this paper I apply basic definitions of induction, deduction and computation to known properties of QM to show that the organism altering itself (and its environment) is a whole shaping its parts. It is not merely parts comprising a whole. I propose that an observer collapsing the wave function is the physical mechanism for producing negentropy. The way forward in solving the information problem in biology is understanding the relationship between cognition and QM.