Thanks folks, sounds like the entire point of quantum computing is to avoid the kinda differences in interpretation that Copenhagen/MWI are concerned with, so my suspicion that a MW computational image would help is mistaken. Which is good, read around some Quantum Algorithms a bit. Have a better grasp of how that actually works than the terrible “explore all possibilities and pick the best” line that seems to come up so much.
Still leaves me a bit at a loss with these quantum effects in photosynthesis though:
We have obtained the first direct evidence that remarkably long-lived wavelike electronic quantum coherence plays an important part in energy transfer processes during photosynthesis,” said Graham Fleming, the principal investigator for the study. “This wavelike characteristic can explain the extreme efficiency of the energy transfer because it enables the system to simultaneously sample all the potential energy pathways and choose the most efficient one.”
Seems likely that line about “simultaneously sampling all the potential energy pathways and choosing the most efficient one” is just as misleading as the similar line in explaining how to quantumly factor a number.
Humm. Oh well. Can’t expect to clear up all my confusion in one day. It’s Friday Night, I should go find something fun to do.
My post does describe a distinct model based on a Many Worlds interpretation where the probabilities are computed differently based on whether entanglement occurs or not—i.e. whether the universes influence each other. It is distinct from the typical model of decoherence.
As for photosythesis, it ought to behave in much the same way, as a network of states propagating through entangled universes, with the interactions of the states in those branches causing the highest probabilities to be assigned to the branches which have the lowest energy barriers.
Of note, there are other, more esoteric models based on even more unusual interpretations of quantum mechanics, but I suspect that’s not something we need to get into here.
Thanks folks, sounds like the entire point of quantum computing is to avoid the kinda differences in interpretation that Copenhagen/MWI are concerned with, so my suspicion that a MW computational image would help is mistaken. Which is good, read around some Quantum Algorithms a bit. Have a better grasp of how that actually works than the terrible “explore all possibilities and pick the best” line that seems to come up so much.
Still leaves me a bit at a loss with these quantum effects in photosynthesis though:
Seems likely that line about “simultaneously sampling all the potential energy pathways and choosing the most efficient one” is just as misleading as the similar line in explaining how to quantumly factor a number.
Humm. Oh well. Can’t expect to clear up all my confusion in one day. It’s Friday Night, I should go find something fun to do.
Quantum computing is totally fun.
My post does describe a distinct model based on a Many Worlds interpretation where the probabilities are computed differently based on whether entanglement occurs or not—i.e. whether the universes influence each other. It is distinct from the typical model of decoherence.
As for photosythesis, it ought to behave in much the same way, as a network of states propagating through entangled universes, with the interactions of the states in those branches causing the highest probabilities to be assigned to the branches which have the lowest energy barriers.
Of note, there are other, more esoteric models based on even more unusual interpretations of quantum mechanics, but I suspect that’s not something we need to get into here.
Right now it looks unlikely that a quantum algorithm is being enacted anyway.