This is not a "quantum sense", it's a mechanism for sensing (non-quantum) magnetic fields that happens to rely on a quantum mechanical effect. But ultimately everything that happens in our universe relies on quantum mechanical effects, to that's not quite as esoteric as the headline is trying to make it appear.
The distinction here is that this effect requires a quantum-mechanical understanding of the world to be understood at the core. It's not like the simple movement of a ball in a parabola, which can be explained in classical terms.
my first thought was the same, but I still had an intuition that it makes sense to call this sort of thing quantum as opposed to other, say, chemical-based senses which, although still at some level obviously relying on quantum physics, are more readily explained by using higher level concepts.
I suppose it comes down to emergent phenomena: what's the lowest-level concept you HAVE to invoke to understand what's going on here? when you want to explain how taste buds work, you can talk about neural paths and chemical chains, and even though each of those things relies on quantum physics to exist, you don't have to invoke the concepts or objects of the quantum world to understand the phenomenon in question. but with this particular phenomenon, you do. you can't just explain how this works with higher level concepts, you have to get low down.
Am I missing something or is this about detecting moving magnetic fields? The researchers waved a magnet over tissue samples.
Moving a magnetic field through electrically conductive material generates electrical currents. That seems like a much simpler mechanism than some invoking quantum effect.
The mechanism of action isn't hypothesized to be electrical current; it's hypothesized to be the magnetic field causing a probability shift in the formation of radical pairs. How they controlled for the possibility of magnetic flux inducing current I'm unclear on (but I think it's understood that that mechanism would be impossible for flavins).
>And there's evidence that even though it's not conscious, humans are actually still capable of detecting Earth's magnetism.
There's nothing totally convincing on this is there? I followed the links and it seems to just be modulating EEG responses. That's not the same as "humans are capable of detecting". It's possible to measure unconscious capabilities behaviourally, e.g in blindsight experiments.
“Importantly, this is evidence of quantum physics directly affecting a biochemical reaction in a cell – something we've long hypothesized but haven't seen in action before.”
But there is an entire field called quantum biology:
A great example (and AFAIK, the first quantum biological reaction identified) is photosynthesis [1]. Quantum coherence is part of the energy transfer mechanism of photosynthesis.
There's a whole field of study in dark matter, something we've not directly observed yet. That article doesn't seem to contradict the assertion; it says things like:
> As we investigate biological systems on nanoscales and larger, we find that there exist processes in biological organisms, detailed in this article, for which it is currently thought that a quantum mechanical description is necessary to fully characterize the behaviour of the relevant subsystem.
This would be proof of one of those hypothesized processes.
I've known people who have a profoundly good sense of direction. They always know which way is North, etc. Not sure if they are just more attuned to visual cues such as position of sun, shadows, stars, etc. or possibly have better sensitivity to magnetic fields?
I have this, and it was a running joke when I was a kid. "remarkEon - what way is North?" and I'd always get it right. I think it's just good spatial awareness - nothing magical or any special sensitivity to magnetic fields. For example, I still get turned around after exiting the subways in New York on occasion (who doesn't).
How's this for an experimental setup: get a cohort of people going in for surgery under general anaesthesia, and randomly place them in a north or south facing windowless room afterwards :) no added risk, and pretty minor cost
[+] [-] lisper|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pradn|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kremlin|4 years ago|reply
I suppose it comes down to emergent phenomena: what's the lowest-level concept you HAVE to invoke to understand what's going on here? when you want to explain how taste buds work, you can talk about neural paths and chemical chains, and even though each of those things relies on quantum physics to exist, you don't have to invoke the concepts or objects of the quantum world to understand the phenomenon in question. but with this particular phenomenon, you do. you can't just explain how this works with higher level concepts, you have to get low down.
[+] [-] ryandvm|4 years ago|reply
Moving a magnetic field through electrically conductive material generates electrical currents. That seems like a much simpler mechanism than some invoking quantum effect.
[+] [-] shadowgovt|4 years ago|reply
The mechanism of action isn't hypothesized to be electrical current; it's hypothesized to be the magnetic field causing a probability shift in the formation of radical pairs. How they controlled for the possibility of magnetic flux inducing current I'm unclear on (but I think it's understood that that mechanism would be impossible for flavins).
[+] [-] ppod|4 years ago|reply
There's nothing totally convincing on this is there? I followed the links and it seems to just be modulating EEG responses. That's not the same as "humans are capable of detecting". It's possible to measure unconscious capabilities behaviourally, e.g in blindsight experiments.
[+] [-] sa1|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aaron695|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] leephillips|4 years ago|reply
“Importantly, this is evidence of quantum physics directly affecting a biochemical reaction in a cell – something we've long hypothesized but haven't seen in action before.”
But there is an entire field called quantum biology:
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2018.064...
[+] [-] jnwatson|4 years ago|reply
1. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature05678
[+] [-] ceejayoz|4 years ago|reply
> As we investigate biological systems on nanoscales and larger, we find that there exist processes in biological organisms, detailed in this article, for which it is currently thought that a quantum mechanical description is necessary to fully characterize the behaviour of the relevant subsystem.
This would be proof of one of those hypothesized processes.
[+] [-] throwawayboise|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] remarkEon|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrec|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rozab|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrfusion|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]