EmeraldBeetle Thank you for engaging with my essay. Your concerns offer an opportunity to clarify what I believe are some fundamental misunderstandings about the nature of the hypothesis, the scope of scientific inquiry appropriate for an essay competition, and, perhaps most importantly, the distinction between pattern recognition and claim-making.
On Scale and the “Mismatch” with Cellular Dimensions:
You note that cell nuclei are typically 5-10 μm, implying this somehow contradicts a 150 μm coherence domain. I confess I find this puzzling, as it suggests a misreading of what organisational scales actually mean in biological systems. A cortical minicolumn is not a cell—it comprises approximately 80-100 neurons organised into a functional computational unit. A capillary network is not a single vessel—it’s an interconnected functional module. A Topologically Associating Domain (TAD) is not a nucleosome—it’s a chromosomal neighbourhood spanning hundreds of kilobases that organises coordinated gene expression.
The entire point of my essay is that this higher-order organisational scale—which transcends individual cellular dimensions—appears with striking consistency across independently evolved systems. That’s not a bug in my argument; that’s the mystery demanding explanation. When cortical architecture (Mountcastle 1997; Buxhoeveden & Casanova 2002), vascular organisation in tissue engineering, and chromatin dynamics (Zidovska et al. 2013) all converge on approximately the same spatial scale, the scientifically appropriate response is to ask why, not to dismiss it because it doesn’t match the diameter of a nucleus.
Unless, of course, one believes that such convergences are merely coincidental—an extraordinary claim in itself, given that these systems evolved under vastly different selective pressures across deep evolutionary time.
** On the “Established” Scales of Quantum Biology:
You write that “known coherence effects in living matter…are on the scale of femtoseconds and nanometers,” apparently intending this as a rebuttal. But with respect, this observation rather misses the forest for the trees. Yes, molecular quantum effects—Engel et al.’s (2007) photosynthetic coherence, Ritz et al.‘s (2000) radical-pair mechanism in magnetoreception—operate at those scales. That’s precisely why most researchers treat quantum biology as a collection of isolated molecular curiosities rather than a fundamental organising principle.
My essay proposes something different: that these molecular-scale quantum effects might be nested within larger coherence-preserving architectures. The fact that no one has previously unified molecular quantum effects with mesoscale biological organisation is not, as you seem to suggest, evidence against the hypothesis—it’s the very gap the hypothesis attempts to address. One might as well have told Engel in 2006 that photosynthetic coherence couldn’t exist because “everyone knows” quantum effects can’t survive in warm, wet, noisy biological environments. The history of science is rather thick with such confident pronouncements made just before paradigm shifts.
** On Citations and “Not in the Literature”:
Your request for “direct citations” supporting macroscopic coherence reveals what I suspect is a fundamental confusion about the epistemological status of different types of scientific work. You appear to be evaluating an essay—explicitly framed as hypothesis generation with testable predictions—using the standards one would apply to a claim of experimental confirmation.
Let me be clear: I am not claiming that 150 μm biological coherence domains have been definitively proven. I am observing that multiple independent biological systems converge on this organisational scale (amply documented in the literature I cite), proposing a unifying physical principle that might explain this convergence, and outlining four specific experimental approaches to test the hypothesis. That is how science works when exploring new conceptual territory. The Zidovska et al. (2013) paper, which you may not have examined closely, demonstrates coordinated chromatin motion at micron scales in living cells—showing collective mechanical behaviour at dimensions where random thermal fluctuations would predict incoherence. While this represents classical correlated motion rather than quantum coherence per se, it raises a crucial question: what organising principle produces such coordinated structure at these specific scales? My hypothesis proposes that quantum effects at molecular scales organise classical structures that converge on characteristic functional dimensions. This multi-scale framework—quantum coherence at molecular levels → organised classical structures at cellular levels → functional modules at tissue scales (150 μm)—aligns with established quantum biology findings where molecular quantum effects (photosynthesis, magnetoreception) produce organised macroscale function. The Zidovska finding fits this pattern: organised chromatin dynamics at micron scales may reflect quantum-organised molecular architecture, which then scales to the 150 μm functional modules I identify. Molski (2011) models living systems as “coherent anharmonic oscillators” at biological scales. Friesen et al. (2015) demonstrate biophysical modelling of quantum resonances in microtubule structures. These aren’t fringe speculations—they’re published in PNAS, Journal of Biological Physics, and peer-reviewed conference proceedings.
What I’m proposing is that these independently observed phenomena might reflect a deeper organising principle. Your implicit suggestion that one should only propose ideas that are already “in the literature” would, if consistently applied, make most theoretical advances impossible. Einstein’s 1905 papers weren’t “in the literature” before he wrote them either.
** On Mechanism and Decoherence:
You ask what mechanism prevents decoherence over 150 μm in warm, wet tissue. This is actually the most substantive scientific question you raise, and I thank you for it—it’s precisely the right thing to probe. While a complete answer requires the experimental validation I propose, several theoretical frameworks suggest plausible mechanisms:
First, the cytoskeletal architecture itself may function as a resonant cavity, with Friesen et al. (2015) demonstrating that microtubule networks can sustain coherent vibrations at megahertz to gigahertz frequencies. Second, and perhaps most intriguingly, the “environment-assisted quantum transport” (ENAQT) framework suggests that biological noise, rather than purely destructive, can actually extend coherence lifetimes by preventing quantum systems from settling into trapped states—a finding that overturned decades of assumptions about decoherence.
But here’s the key point: the absence of a complete mechanistic explanation doesn’t invalidate the pattern recognition that motivates the hypothesis. Darwin didn’t know about DNA, yet natural selection remained a valid theoretical framework. The patterns I identify are real and documented; the mechanism I propose is testable. That’s sufficient for a hypothesis at this stage of inquiry.
** On Consciousness and “Generic Functionalism”:
You dismiss my consciousness discussion as “generic functionalist,” which—and I say this with all due respect—suggests you may have skimmed rather than engaged with that section. I explicitly acknowledge that consciousness remains deeply mysterious, and I’m not claiming to have solved it. What I am suggesting is that the puzzle of how quantum effects at molecular scales could influence brain-level cognition might have a straightforward answer: they don’t need to span the entire brain. They need only persist within modular processing domains before classical dynamics distribute the results.
This isn’t generic functionalism—it’s a specific architectural proposal about how quantum and classical computation might be integrated in neural tissue. Whether it’s correct remains to be determined, but dismissing it as “generic” rather than engaging with the actual proposal seems more rhetorical than substantive.
** On Extraordinary Claims and Evidence:
You conclude with Carl Sagan’s famous line about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence, apparently intending this as a mic-drop moment. But let’s examine what’s actually “extraordinary” here.
Is it extraordinary to notice that multiple biological systems converge on similar organisational scales? No—that’s basic comparative biology.
Is it extraordinary to propose that physical principles might explain biological patterns? No—that’s been the foundation of biophysics since its inception.
Is it extraordinary to suggest that quantum effects might operate at larger scales than currently documented? Perhaps—but then Engel et al.’s 2007 discovery was “extraordinary” too, until it was experimentally confirmed.
What I find genuinely extraordinary is the implicit suggestion that an essay competition—whose very purpose is to explore speculative ideas at the frontiers of physics and biology—should only contain claims already established in peer-reviewed literature. If that were the standard, what exactly would be the point of inviting essays?
More to the point, I provided four specific, falsifiable experimental approaches:
1. Terahertz resonance spectroscopy at frequencies corresponding to 150 μm domains
2. Statistical analysis of size distributions across diverse biological tissues
3. Direct measurement of coherence lifetime as a function of tissue module size
4. Computational modelling of coherence saturation and reorganisation dynamics
That’s not hand-waving—that’s how one generates extraordinary evidence for a new hypothesis. You seem to want me to have already completed the experiments before proposing them, which rather inverts the usual sequence of scientific inquiry.
I appreciate critical engagement with ideas, genuinely. But effective criticism requires distinguishing between:
• Pattern recognition vs. claim-making
• Hypothesis generation vs. experimental confirmation
• “Not yet proven” vs. “disproven”
• “Speculative” vs. “unmotivated”
My essay observes documented patterns in biological organisation, proposes a unifying physical principle grounded in quantum coherence theory, and outlines specific experiments to test the hypothesis. That some find the proposal “extraordinary” is, frankly, the point—science advances by taking seriously ideas that initially seem implausible, then subjecting them to rigorous testing.
You’re welcome to remain sceptical. Scepticism is healthy. But labelling a hypothesis “unmotivated and metaphorically speculative” when it’s grounded in published biological data, supported by emerging theoretical frameworks in quantum biology, and accompanied by concrete experimental proposals.
On a final note: I should clarify, this isn't casual speculation. The coherence domain hypothesis represents my original research program, which naturally extends beyond what can be disclosed in an essay competition. I've presented
Pattern recognition grounded in published biological data, a testable theoretical framework, and specific experimental approaches. That's appropriate for this format. Further theoretical development will be published through standard academic channels when ready.
Best regards,
CW
