A new study argues that the strange rules once thought to apply only to subatomic particles may also be necessary to understand how living systems work, from single cells to the human brain, challenging long-held assumptions in biology and neuroscience.
The paper, published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, explores the idea that core features of life -- coherence, adaptability, and organization across scales -- cannot be fully explained by classical physics alone. Instead, it suggests that biology may require principles analogous to those of quantum mechanics, including uncertainty, complementarity, and quantization, though not necessarily in the same mathematical form used in physics, according to the authors Neil D. Theise of NYU Grossman School of Medicine and Jack A. Tuszynski, who holds appointments in physics and engineering across institutions in Europe and North America..
“All chemistry including biochemistry is based on the creation and destruction of bonds between atoms and molecules and hence on quantum interactions, so living systems, similarly to non-living systems, depend on quantum states at the level of fundamental building blocks,” the researchers write. “However, the unitary oneness and functional synchronization exhibited by living systems suggest that higher level quantum properties such as Bose-Einstein condensation, quantum coherent superposition and entanglement may also operate in biology.”
The study is a Perspective article, not a report of a single experiment, but it synthesizes decades of theoretical work and recent experimental findings from the growing field of quantum biology.
According to the researchers, living systems behave as complex, adaptive networks operating at the boundary between order and chaos. In that regime, small disturbances can matter, observation can alter outcomes and energy use appears discretized rather than smooth -- features that echo the logic of quantum theory.
Measurement, Uncertainty, and Living Cells
One important claim is that biology faces its own version of the measurement problem. In quantum physics, measuring a particle inevitably disturbs it. The researchers report that something similar occurs in biology when the observation or isolation of a cell alters its behavior in ways that cannot be fully controlled or reversed.
This idea, sometimes referred to as “cellular uncertainty,” challenges the assumption that cells have fixed identities independent of their environment. The study points to evidence from stem cell research and cell plasticity showing that a cell’s fate can shift dramatically depending on context. Even routine laboratory procedures -- removing cells from tissue, placing them in culture, tagging them with markers -- can change gene expression and function.
The implication is not that experiments are invalid, but that there are limits to how precisely biological states can be defined. According to the researchers, this uncertainty is not a technical flaw that better tools will eliminate. Rather, it’s an inherent property of complex living systems.
Quantized Energy in Living Systems
In another quantum-relevant assertion, the paper also indicates that biological processes may operate with their own versions of quantized action, similar in spirit to Planck’s constant in physics.
In physics, Planck’s constant sets the smallest unit of action -- energy multiplied by time -- that can meaningfully occur. The researchers review prior work suggesting that metabolism and cellular energy use follow discrete steps tied to molecular processes such as ATP production in mitochondria. Because ATP molecules are produced and consumed in whole numbers, energy flow in cells is not continuous but stepwise.
Building on this, the team estimates scale-specific “biological Planck constants” for different levels of organization, including mitochondria, microtubules, neurons and the brain as a whole. Each level operates with a characteristic scale of energy and time, increasing by orders of magnitude as biological organization grows larger.
This scaling may help explain why biological systems maintain coherence across vast differences in size and speed, from molecular vibrations lasting trillionths of a second to neural processes unfolding over milliseconds and longer, the researchers report.
Evidence for Quantum Effects in Biology
Skepticism toward quantum biology has long rested on the objection that quantum states should rapidly decohere in warm, wet biological environments. The study reviews recent experimental work that challenges that assumption.
Among the findings cited are experiments showing that certain proteins, including tubulin -- a building block of microtubules -- can support short-lived but measurable quantum excitations at room temperature. These excitations persist for nanoseconds and span distances comparable to the size of the protein itself.
The study also points to evidence that anesthetic molecules shorten the lifetime of these excitations, an observation the authors describe as an indirect link between quantum coherence and neural function. While the researchers stop well short of claiming that consciousness is quantum mechanical, they argue that such results merit further investigation rather than dismissal.
As background, the Orch Or theory of consciousness, developed by Roger Penrose and Stuart Hameroff, proposes that quantum activity in tubulin within neuronal microtubules could allow quantum effects to persist in the brain, a claim that remains controversial.
The team covers additional examples including quantum coherence in photosynthesis, avian navigation, and enzyme activity, all of which have been experimentally studied over the past two decades.
Classical and Quantum Biology Bridge
The researchers offer a proposal to adapt a mathematical framework known as the Method of Coherent Structures. Originally developed in condensed-matter physics to study many-body quantum systems, the method allows classical, nonlinear behavior and quantum fluctuations to coexist within a single model.
In this framework, higher-level biological structures act as classical “envelopes” that constrain and organize quantum-scale activity beneath them. This approach offers a way to model how living systems remain stable while still exploiting uncertainty and variability, the researchers add.
The method has already been applied to non-biological systems such as superconductors and superfluids. Its application to biology remains largely theoretical, though the study notes one prior use in modeling microtubule dynamics that aligned well with experimental data.
Implications: Neuroscience and Medicine
If the researchers are correct, the implications extend beyond theory. In neuroscience, the study suggests that information processing may not be confined to synapses and electrical signals alone, but could also involve intracellular structures such as microtubules and cytoskeletal networks.
The paper raises the possibility that disease could arise, in part, from disruptions to biological coherence. Cancer, neurodegeneration and metabolic disorders are mentioned as areas where breakdowns in coordinated activity across scales might play a role.
The researchers also caution that environmental factors -- including electromagnetic exposure or chemical interference -- could, in principle, affect subtle biological processes in ways that are not yet well understood.
Limits, Open Questions, and Next Steps
The study is honest that the work contains limitations. It does not claim that all biological phenomena are quantum mechanical, nor does it argue that quantum effects dominate biology. Many of the proposed principles are analogies rather than direct extensions of quantum theory.
Experimental evidence remains fragmentary, and much of the work cited has been conducted under controlled laboratory conditions rather than in living organisms. Whether quantum coherence plays a functional role in intact cells, tissues, or brains is still an open question.
Theise and Tuszynski emphasize the need for new experiments designed specifically to test these ideas, as well as new mathematical tools capable of handling systems that are simultaneously nonlinear, adaptive, and uncertain.
The argument is framed historically. Early quantum mechanics was accepted not because it explained everything, but because a small number of experiments could not be explained any other way. Biology may now be approaching a similar moment.
The paper ultimately calls for a shift in perspective rather than a settled conclusion. Biology, it argues, may not be a machine governed solely by deterministic rules, but a layered system in which uncertainty, context, and scale are inseparable from function.
