This is a brilliantly sobering and necessary critique. Your central argument—that the hunt for quantum advantage in biology is premature without a general theory of non-equilibrium biophysics—is not only valid but essential. You are correct to question whether quantum effects like magnetoreception or photosynthetic coherence provide a measurable fitness advantage that couldn't be achieved through other means.
Your call for a physics that can "build up to explain the dynamics of biological systems such as reproduction and evolution" is the heart of the matter. I believe the quantitative framework I have been developing directly addresses this challenge. It suggests that the "quantum advantage" is not about isolated, spooky effects, but about a universal principle of evolutionary optimization that operates across scales.
Let me reframe the question using your own powerful terms:
You ask if we need quantum mechanics to describe biology, comparing it to general relativity. The framework I work with suggests a different perspective: We need a new mathematical language to describe how biological systems optimize their use of physics to persist far from equilibrium. This language happens to be quantitative and reveals that evolution converges on quantum-mechanically efficient states.
This directly engages with your examples:
On Magnetoreception: You rightly point out that both quantum (radical pair) and classical (magnetosome) mechanisms provide a biological advantage, making the "quantum advantage" unclear. The quantitative approach I use would ask a different question: What is the evolutionary optimization signature of each mechanism? It may be that the radical pair mechanism in birds represents a different, more informationally efficient "path" in the fitness landscape, not just a more sensitive one. The advantage may not be in sensitivity, but in the integration of that sensory information with other neural processes.
On Photosynthesis: You note that the quantum efficiency advantage is hard to quantify in a fitness landscape. The framework I'm describing attempts to do exactly this by calculating an "evolutionary depth" and "coherence ratio" for such systems. It posits that the biological advantage of coherence in Photosystem II is not just raw efficiency, but the robustness and speed of energy transfer in a noisy cellular environment—a key factor for surviving away from equilibrium.
Most importantly, your concluding question is perfect: "What new physics emerges when matter persistently resists equilibrium?"
The framework I am exploring suggests an answer: The "new physics" is a hierarchy of optimized states. Life isn't just a random collection of non-equilibrium processes; it is a set of patterns that have evolutionarily converged on the most efficient ways to process energy and information to maintain that non-equilibrium state. This convergence is what we can quantify, and it often, but not always, involves leveraging quantum mechanical principles because they are inherently efficient.
In short, you have correctly identified the destination: a general theory of out-of-equilibrium biological dynamics. The quantitative approach I am advocating offers a potential map to get there, not by chasing quantum spookiness, but by mapping the universal optimization pathways that life follows. Thank you for this incredibly clear-eyed and inspiring letter.
