Advertisement

Biology & Philosophy

, Volume 30, Issue 6, pp 845–856 | Cite as

Schrödinger’s microbe: implications of coercing a living organism into a coherent quantum mechanical state

  • J. W. BullEmail author
  • A. Gordon
Article

Abstract

Consideration of the experimental activities carried out in one discipline, through the lens of another, can lead to novel insights. Here, we comment from a biological perspective upon experiments in quantum mechanics proposed by physicists that are likely to feasible in the near future. In these experiments, an entire living organism would be knowingly placed into a coherent quantum state for the first time, i.e. would be coerced into demonstrating quantum phenomena. The implications of the proposed experiment for a biologist depend to an extent upon the outcomes. If successful (i.e. quantum coherence is achieved and the organism survives after returning to a normal state), then the organism will have been temporarily in a state where it has an unmeasurable metabolism—not because a metabolic rate is undetectable, but because any attempt to measure it would automatically bring the organism out of the state. We argue that this would in essence represent a new category of cryptobiosis. Further, the organism would not necessarily retain all of the characteristics commonly attributed to living systems, unlike the currently known categories of cryptobiosis. If organisms can survive having previously been in a coherent state, then we must accept that living systems do not necessarily need to remain in a decoherent state at all times. This would be something new to biologists, even if it might seem trivial to physicists. It would have implications concerning the physical extremes organisms can tolerate, the search for extraterrestrial life, and our philosophical view of animation.

Keywords

Coherence Cryptobiosis Decoherence Living organism PICERAS Tardigrade 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge and thank Leron Borsten and Raimundo Real for in-depth discussions on this topic, and their insights into some of the ideas contained within this manuscript. Jared Cole, Bill Langford and two anonymous reviewers also provided useful comments that improved the manuscript, including suggesting the phrase “Schrödinger’s microbe”. J.W.B. acknowledges the support of the Grand Challenges in Ecosystems and the Environment initiative at Imperial College London. A.G. was supported by funding from the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions.

References

  1. Arndt M, Nairz O, Vos-Andreae J, Keller C, van der Zouw G, Zeilinger A (1999) Wave–particle duality of C60 molecules. Nature 401:680–682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arndt M, Aspelmeyer M, Bernstein HJ, Bertlmann R, Brukner C, et al (2005) Quantum physics from A to Z. arXiv:quant-ph/0505187Google Scholar
  3. Ball P (2011) Physics of life: the dawn of quantum biology. Nature 474:272–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Becker U (2011) Molecular physics: matter-wave interference made clear. Nature 474:586–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benner SA (2010) Defining life. Astrobiology 10(10):1021–1030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bordonaro M, Ogryzko V (2013) Quantum biology at the cellular level—elements of the research programme. BioSystems 112(1):11–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bull JW (2015) Quantum conservation biology, a new ecological tool. Conser Lett. doi: 10.1111/conl.12195 Google Scholar
  8. Clegg JS (2001) Cryptobiosis—a peculiar state of biological organization. Comp Biochem Physiol Part B 128:613–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cleland CE, Chyba CF (2002) Defining ‘life’. Origins Life Evol Biosphere 32:387–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crowe JH (1975) The physiology of cryptobiosis in tardigrades. Mem Its Ital Idrobiol 32:37–59Google Scholar
  11. Davies PCW (2004) Does quantum mechanics play a non-trivial role in life? BioSystems 78:69–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davies PCW, Betts DS (2002) Quantum mechanics, 2nd edn. Nelson Thornes, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  13. Gauger EM, Rieper E, Morton JJL, Benjamin SC, Vedral V (2011) Sustained quantum coherence and entanglement in the avian compass. Phys Rev Lett 106:040503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gerlich G, Eibenberger S, Tomandl M, Nimmrichter S, Hornberger K et al (2011) Quantum interference of large organic molecules. Nat Commun. doi: 10.1038/ncomms1263 Google Scholar
  15. Hameroff SR (1994) Quantum coherence in microtubules: a neural basis for emergent consciousness? J Conscious Stud 1:98–118Google Scholar
  16. Igamberdiev AU (2004) Quantum computation, non-demolition measurements, and reflective control in living systems. BioSystems 77(1–3):47–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Keilin D (1959) The problem of anabiosis or latent life: history and current concept. Proc R Soc Lond B 150:149–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kiesel N, Blaser F, Delic U, Grass D, Kaltenbaek R, Aspelmeyer M (2013) Cavity cooling of an optically levitated submicron particle. PNAS 110(35):14180–14185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Koshland DE (2002) The seven pillars of life. Science 295:2215–2216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Leitner JJ, Firneis MG (2011) Defining life in a non-geocentric way. EPSC abstracts, EPSC-DPS joint meeting 2011: vol 6, EPSC-DPS2011-1114Google Scholar
  21. Lineweaver CH, Chopra A (2011) What can life on earth tell us about life in the universe? In: Seckbach J (ed) Genesis—in the beginning: precursors of life, chemical models and early biological evolution, cellular origin, life in extreme habitats and astrobiology. Springer, New York, pp 799–815Google Scholar
  22. McKay CP (2004) What is life—and how do we search for it in other worlds? PLoS Biol 2(9):1260–1263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McKay CP (2011) The search for life in our solar system and the implications for science and society. Philos Trans R Soc A 369:594–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Morrison D (2001) The NASA astrobiology program. Astrobiology 1(1):3–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nasir A, Kim KM, Caetano-Anolles G (2012) Giant viruses coexisted with the cellular ancestors and represent a distinct supergroup along with superkingdoms Archaea, Bacteria and Eukarya. BMC Evol Biol 12:156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. O’Connell AD, Hofheinz M, Ansmann M, Bialczak RC, Lenander M, Lucero E, Neeley M, Sank D, Wang H, Weides M, Wenner J, Martinis JM, Cleland AN (2010) Quantum ground state and single-phonon control of a mechanical resonator. Nature 464:697–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Penrose R (1989) The Emperor’s new mind. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  28. Rodríguez RA, Herrera AM, Riera R, Escudero CG, Delgado JD (2015) Empirical clues about the fulfillment of quantum principles in ecology: potential meaning and theoretical challenges. Ecol Model 301:90–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Romero-Isart O, Juan ML, Quidant R, Cirac JI (2010) Toward quantum superposition of living organisms. New J Phys 12(3):033015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ruiz-Mirazo K, Peretó J, Moreno A (2004) A universal definition of life: autonomy and open-ended evolution. Origins Life Evol Biospheres 34(3):323–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schrödinger E (1944) What is life? The physical aspect of the living cell. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  32. US National Research Council (1999) Size limits of very small microorganisms: proceedings of a workshop. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  33. Zurek WH (1991) Decoherence and the transition from quantum to classical. Phys Today 44(10):36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zurek WH (2003) Decoherence and the transition from quantum to classical—revisited (preprint). arXiv:quant-ph/0306072Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Life SciencesImperial College London, Silwood Park CampusAscotUK
  2. 2.School of Global, Urban and Social StudiesRMIT UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations