Study Finds Cells May Compute Faster Than Today’s Quantum Computers

Study Finds Cells May Compute Faster Than Today’s Quantum Computers

Matt Swayne

More than 80 years ago, Erwin Schrödinger, a theoretical physicist steeped in the philosophy of Schopenhauer and the Upanishads, delivered a series of public lectures at Trinity College, Dublin, which eventually came to be published in 1944 under the title What is Life?

Now, in the 2025 International Year of Quantum Science and Technology, Philip Kurian, a theoretical physicist and founding director of the Quantum Biology Laboratory (QBL) at Howard University in Washington, D.C., has used the laws of quantum mechanics, which Schrödinger postulated, and the QBL’s discovery of cytoskeletal filaments exhibiting quantum optical features, to set a drastically revised upper bound on the computational capacity of carbon-based life in the entire history of Earth. Published in Science Advances, Kurian’s latest work conjectures a relationship between this information-processing limit and that of all matter in the observable universe.

“This work connects the dots among the great pillars of twentieth century physics—thermodynamics, relativity, and quantum mechanics—for a major paradigm shift across the biological sciences, investigating the feasibility and implications of quantum information processing in wetware at ambient temperatures,” said Kurian. “Physicists and cosmologists should wrestle with these findings, especially as they consider the origins of life on Earth and elsewhere in the habitable universe, evolving in concert with the electromagnetic field.”

I am coming to think that Quantum Computing is never going to displace conventional computers!

I used to be excited about the subject, but now I am very cynical. Incidentally, any old piece of electronic hardware can be a super fast computer for selected tasks. For example, it can simulate its own operation very efficiently

David

I am coming to think that Quantum Computing is never going to displace conventional computers!

I used to be excited about the subject, but now I am very cynical. Incidentally, any old piece of electronic hardware can be a super fast computer for selected tasks. For example, it can simulate its own operation very efficiently 

David

You misunderstand the purpose of quantum computing. Although quantum computing are, in theory, a superset of classical computing, quantum computers are unlikely ever to replace classical machines for every task. Their complexity—such as the need for extreme cryogenic cooling—makes that impractical. Instead, quantum computers will complement classical systems. One of their most promising applications is calculating electron energies in hypothetical molecules, a problem that is virtually unsolvable with classical computing alone. Ideally this approach will lead to rapid development of new medicines and materials for example.

You misunderstand the purpose of quantum computing. Although quantum computing are, in theory, a superset of classical computing, quantum computers are unlikely ever to replace classical machines for every task. Their complexity—such as the need for extreme cryogenic cooling—makes that impractical. Instead, quantum computers will complement classical systems. One of their most promising applications is calculating electron energies in hypothetical molecules, a problem that is virtually unsolvable with classical computing alone. Ideally this approach will lead to rapid development of new medicines and materials for example.

Well as to whether QC's are ever going to work, I still have my doubts. Back in 1970 coupling 7 spins together would produce a spectrum that could no longer be resolved. Every time you add another spin, you double the number of couplings. That is the problem associated with building ANY quantum computer, but on top of that you have the problem that QC's are only useful for very specialised tasks - such as the one you describe.

Assuming this molecular simulator would require one qubit per electron and that the motion of the nuclei were to be handled classically, that would still require maybe 1000 qbits to simulate any molecule of interest. Now think back to my first point - the cost/complexity of the beast goes up exponentially with the number of qbits.

If you can refute any of that I will genuinely be interested.

David

….
Assuming this molecular simulator would require one qubit per electron and that the motion of the nuclei were to be handled classically, that would still require maybe 1000 qbits to simulate any molecule of interest. Now think back to my first point - the cost/complexity of the beast goes up exponentially with the number of qbits.

If you can refute any of that I will genuinely be interested.

David

I’m working my way through the PNAS article (https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2203533119) on the electronic structure of cytochrome P450—an enzyme that plays a key role in many bodily processes, especially in the liver. The authors estimate that simulating this molecule on a quantum computer would require on the order of millions of qubits, highlighting the enormous scale needed to tackle systems of genuine pharmaceutical interest. I share your skepticism about whether such machines will ever exist—it feels a bit like the endless promises surrounding fusion energy.