I would post anything with a name like Darius Abramavicius in it.I wouldn't blame ya. Thanks decimon!
· List topics · post a topic · subscribe · Google ·
Posted on 07/21/2010 3:36:47 PM PDT by decimon
College Park, MD (July 20, 2010) -- Recently, academic debate has been swirling around the existence of unusual quantum mechanical effects in the most ubiquitous of phenomena, including photosynthesis, the process by which organisms convert light into chemical energy. In particular, physicists have suggested that entanglement (the quantum interconnection of two or more objects like photons, electrons, or atoms that are separated in physical space) could be occurring in the photosynthetic complexes of plants, particularly in the pigment molecules, or chromophores. The quantum effects may explain why the structures are so efficient at converting light into energy -- doing so at 95 percent or more.
In a paper in The Journal of Chemical Physics, which is published by the American Institute of Physics, these ideas are put to the test in a novel computer simulation of energy transport in a photosynthetic reaction center. Using the simulation, professor Shaul Mukamel and senior research associate Darius Abramavicius at the University of California, Irvine show that long-lived quantum coherence is an "essential ingredient for quantum information storage and manipulation," according to Mukamel. It is possible between chromophores even at room temperature, he says, and it "can strongly affect the light-harvesting efficiency."
If the existence of such effects can be substantiated experimentally, he says, this understanding of quantum energy transfer and charge separation pathways may help the design of solar cells that take their inspiration from nature.
###
The article, "Quantum oscillatory exciton migration in photosynthetic reaction centers" by Darius Abramavicius and Shaul Mukamel will appear in The Journal of Chemical Physics. See: http://jcp.aip.org/
Journalists may request a free PDF of this article by contacting jbardi@aip.org
NOTE: An image is available for journalists. Please contact jbardi@aip.org
Image Caption: Artistic depiction of pathways with a photosynthetic complex in the background.
ABOUT THE JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL PHYSICS
The Journal of Chemical Physics publishes concise and definitive reports of significant research in methods and applications of chemical physics. Innovative research in traditional areas of chemical physics such as spectroscopy, kinetics, statistical mechanics, and quantum mechanics continue to be areas of interest to readers of JCP. In addition, newer areas such as polymers, materials, surfaces/interfaces, information theory, and systems of biological relevance are of increasing importance. Routine applications of chemical physics techniques may not be appropriate for JCP. Content is published online daily, collected into four monthly online and printed issues (48 issues per year); the journal is published by the American Institute of Physics. See: http://jcp.aip.org/
ABOUT AIP
The American Institute of Physics is a federation of 10 physical science societies representing more than 135,000 scientists, engineers, and educators and is one of the world's largest publishers of scientific information in the physical sciences. Offering partnership solutions for scientific societies and for similar organizations in science and engineering, AIP is a leader in the field of electronic publishing of scholarly journals. AIP publishes 12 journals (some of which are the most highly cited in their respective fields), two magazines, including its flagship publication Physics Today; and the AIP Conference Proceedings series. Its online publishing platform Scitation hosts nearly two million articles from more than 185 scholarly journals and other publications of 28 learned society publishers.
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!
I would post anything with a name like Darius Abramavicius in it.I wouldn't blame ya. Thanks decimon!
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:
Quantum Entanglement: If you're girlfriend is in a bad mood, it causes you to be in a bad mood, even if you aren't in the same room with her.
Most plants don’t even need to convert sunlight to energy at a HIGH EFFICIENCY.
There’s SO MUCH ENERGY in one small beam of light, if the plants could convert that much energy from it, we’d be hooking our houses up to flowers.
That is the best analogy I've heard for quantum entanglement!
I think you mean, the Nobel Prize Winner, Steven Chu.
This is how Obama always refers to him.
But didn’t Obama himself, win one too?
Cracker Jack prize means more now!
Agree with that. I don't know about the Physics "quantum entanglement" side, but you're right. I guess just leave it to the intermediary reporting to confuse facts.
Although I do wonder sometimes about the ingenuousness of contemporary physics, e.g. climate modeling.
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.
“Science isn’t about consensus, it’s about making up data to fit an agenda!” :’)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2554805/posts?page=23#23
Cheers!
THX THX.
Science is about consensus.
Discovery is about going against consensus.
Making up data to fit an agenda is witch-hunting.
Glad we agree.
My pleasure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.