Swirling debate ping.
I would post anything with a name like Darius Abramavicius in it.
Er, fascinating. So Mother Nature can convert sunlight into energy with far greater efficiency than the works of Man.
Look to DOE’s Steven Chu to sink a cool hundred billion or so bucks into the venture and proclaim that (literally) “green” solar cells are just around the corner.
Sweet! Yet another scientific paper that invokes evolution, despite it being a completely unnecessary assumption!
me not understand
The quantum effects may explain why the structures are so efficient at converting light into energy -- doing so at 95 percent or more.That part is bullshit, plain and simple. Photosynthetic efficiency is well under ten percent; biological systems in general are under five percent efficient, and like all energy-using systems, much of the energy use results in waste heat. The wiki-wacky-pedia puts photosynthetic efficiency at between 3 and 6 percent. Reprise:
I don't see why this definition of entanglement doesn't apply, for example, to the conduction bands of metals. Their familiar thermal, electrical, and optical properties are uniquely explained by the quantum combination of trillions, quadrillions, and quintillions of electrons into cooperative states of motion, which are the well-studied subject of Introductory Solid State Physics.
This understanding is, if anything, even more mind-blowing than the more exotic examples of entanglement that we see touted in the press. I leave it to the cynical science of human behavior to explain why we do not see blaring headlines declaring the marvels of the mundane.
95%? That's a typo or someone doesn't know what the hell they're talking about.