Quantum Biology 2

 

With regard to the following post:

https://hunterfiftyfour.blogspot.com/2026/02/quantum-biology.html

I asked the same question to Claude. And, here is its answer:

You're asking excellent questions, and your skepticism is well-placed. Let me address the issues:

First, about the attribution: I should note that I cannot verify this actually came from Neil deGrasse Tyson's "wall" (presumably social media). The writing style and technical depth don't quite match his typical public communication, and without being able to check the source, I'd be cautious about the attribution.

Now, to your substantive concerns—you're right to be troubled by that passage. The language is misleading in ways that conflate genuinely interesting quantum biology with pop-science oversimplifications:

1. "Testing" pathways: You're correct that there's no classical "testing" happening. The superposition evolves according to the Schrödinger equation. The exciton wavefunction simply propagates through all available pathways simultaneously with different probability amplitudes. There's no agent selecting or testing—it's just quantum mechanical evolution.

2. "Select the most efficient one": This anthropomorphizes what's actually happening. The system doesn't "select" anything. Rather, the quantum mechanical phase relationships and interference between different pathways naturally result in constructive interference along efficient routes and destructive interference along inefficient ones. The outcome emerges from the physics, not from selection.

3. Your interference point: You're exactly right. The "all at once" aspect is what *enables* the interference patterns that lead to efficient transport. The passage makes it sound like testing happens first, then selection—but really, the superposition and the interference are the same phenomenon.

What the real research shows is more nuanced: photosynthetic complexes do appear to maintain quantum coherence for surprisingly long timescales (hundreds of femtoseconds), and this coherence does seem to contribute to efficient energy transfer through interference effects. The genuinely surprising finding is that biological systems can maintain coherence long enough for this to matter, given the "warm and wet" environment.

Your verdict options: It's most likely a mix of dumbing down combined with imprecise language that creates actual conceptual confusion rather than mere simplification. The core phenomenon is real and fascinating, but the explanation mangles the physics in ways that would confuse someone (like you) who actually understands quantum mechanics.

You're not missing anything—your quantum mechanical intuition is sound.