Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 44 references

Quantum modeling of radical pair magnetic sensor based on electric dipole moment

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A cryptochrome radical pair can act as a magnetic biosensor through a field-dependent electric dipole moment that survives dissipation.

desk verdict The paper's 'electric dipole' is nothing but a spin coherence in disguise; the central sensor claim reduces to ordinary radical-pair spin dynamics. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.13840 v2 pith:JDP4XSHC submitted 2025-10-11 physics.bio-ph quant-ph

Mahboobe Sehati , Ali Soltanmanesh , Shabnam Abutalebi , Abolfazl Bahrampour , Naser Haeri , Sareh Rostami , Alireza Bahrampour This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.bio-phquant-ph
keywords cryptochromeradicalpairmagnetoreceptionavianmagneticcompassspin-orbitcouplingelectricdipolemomentopenquantumsystemLindbladmasterequation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that the radical pair in cryptochrome—the leading candidate for the avian magnetic compass—is a magnetic biosensor because its electric dipole moment changes with the inclination and strength of the geomagnetic field. By coupling electron spin to spatial states through spin-orbit interaction, the authors define an effective dipole operator built from spin-flip ladder operators and compute its expectation value. They find the dipole is periodic in the field's inclination angle, blind to field polarity, especially responsive to field strengths in the 25–65 µT range, and still angle-dependent after decoherence. A sympathetic reader would care because this gives a concrete physical signal—an electric dipole—that a bird could, in principle, detect, resolving a long-standing question about what the radical pair actually outputs.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is an effective electric dipole operator built from the electron spin-flip ladder operators, x̂ = sqrt(ℏ/2mω)(σ+ + σ−), combined with a three-level orbital angular momentum space (m_l = −1, 0, +1) for each radical. The spin-orbit coupling term ζ_j L_j·S_j entangles spin and spatial degrees of freedom, allowing the dipole expectation value to respond to the external magnetic field. The Hamiltonian also includes Zeeman and hyperfine terms (single spin-1/2 nucleus), and the dynamics are computed with the von Neumann equation and, for dissipation, the Lindblad master equation at rate Γ = 10^6 s^-1.

What would settle it

Expose a cryptochrome sample to a static external electric field while monitoring radical-pair singlet/triplet yields: if the field-dependent electric dipole is physically real, the field must perturb the spin dynamics; no perturbation would indicate the computed dipole is not a real charge displacement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the radical pair in cryptochrome acts as a magnetic biosensor whose output is an electric dipole moment. Modeling the radical pair with the Zeeman, hyperfine, and spin-orbit interactions, and adopting the rotating-wave approximation x̂ ∝ (σ+ + σ−) to convert spin transitions into a position operator, the authors compute the x-component of the electric dipole moment P_x. They report that P_x varies periodically with the inclination angle θ of the external magnetic field (with P_x(θ) = P_x(θ+π), so the sensor does not detect polarity), shows an oscillatory and nonlinear dependence on the field strength B0 that is strongest in the geomagnetic range, and retains its ang

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that a spin flip in the radical pair is the same thing as a spatial shift of charge; if that equivalence fails, the electric dipole moment is an artifact and the sensor signal vanishes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The dipole moment provides a biophysical readout for the avian compass that is distinct from the usual chemical-yield signal: a spatially distributed electric field that could affect nearby proteins or ion channels.
  • The system's blindness to field polarity, P_x(θ) = P_x(θ+π), matches the known inclination-compass behavior of migratory birds.
  • The strongest sensitivity to field strength occurs in the geomagnetic window (about 25–65 µT), consistent with observations that stronger fields disrupt orientation.
  • The angle-dependence of the dipole survives environmental dissipation at physiological temperature, so the quantum compass mechanism need not be destroyed by decoherence.
  • Because P_x responds to both angle and intensity, the radical pair could act as a magnetic map (position) as well as a compass (direction).

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension: if the radical-pair dipole is real, an applied static electric field should shift the spin dynamics and alter singlet/triplet yields; this Stark-type experiment could confirm the dipole's physical presence.
  • The ladder-operator ansatz effectively assumes spin decoherence and spatial decoherence are the same process; a more microscopic treatment would separate the two and may alter the predicted steady-state sensitivity.
  • The single-nucleus hyperfine approximation likely understates directional anisotropy; full multi-nucleus hyperfine tensors could sharpen or shift the predicted angular peaks, so the qualitative claim should survive but quantitative angles may change.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The authors model the spin dynamics of a cryptochrome radical pair in a 72-dimensional Hilbert space containing two electron spins, one nuclear spin, and two orbital angular-momentum (Lz) spaces, with hyperfine, Zeeman, spin-orbit, and dissipative terms. They define an electric dipole operator p = Σ e r_i and compute its x-component P_x, reporting that P_x depends on both the inclination angle and strength of the external magnetic field, and that this dependence survives dissipation. They conclude that the radical pair acts as a magnetic biosensor whose dipole moment can serve as a biological orientation signal. The central claim rests on Eq. (12), which approximates the position operator by spin-1/2 ladder operators.

Significance. If the central result were correct, it would offer a concrete physical readout for radical-pair magnetoreception, going beyond usual singlet/triplet yields and proposing a measurable electric-dipole signal robust to decoherence. The paper includes substantial numerical work: an open-system simulation in a 72-dimensional Hilbert space, parameter scans over angle and field strength, and a steady-state analysis. However, the significance as stated is not realized, because the computed 'dipole moment' is a spin coherence, not a charge-displacement dipole; the paper's predictions are therefore not predictions about electric dipole fields in cryptochrome. The unphysical scaling of the hyperfine parameter and the SOC inconsistency further undermine the quantitative claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2, Eq. (12)] The central observable is not an electric dipole. Eq. (12) defines x̂ = √(ℏ/2mω)(σ̂+ + σ̂−) with σ̂± electron-spin raising/lowering operators. This is not a position operator: the harmonic-oscillator position operator is built from bosonic operators with [â,â†]=1, whereas spin-1/2 ladder operators act on a two-level spin space and satisfy different commutation relations. The rotating-wave approximation does not justify this identification. Consequently Eq. (10) gives P_x = e√(ℏ/2mω)⟨σ̂_x⟩, so the quantities plotted in Figs. 3–9 are spin coherences, not charge-separation dipole moments. The B-dependence of P_x is inherited from the Zeeman interaction by construction; it is not an emergent electrical signal.
  2. [Table 1 and Fig. 6] Table 1 sets A_z = 10^{-3}γB0, making the hyperfine coupling proportional to the external field strength. This is unphysical: hyperfine coupling is an intrinsic molecular property and should be fixed when B0 is varied. In Fig. 6, the authors scan B0 while A_z scales with B0, so both hyperfine and Zeeman terms grow linearly with field. The reported oscillatory dependence at low fields and the decrease at high fields may therefore be artifacts of this artificial scaling. The field-strength dependence must be recomputed with fixed hyperfine parameters.
  3. [Abstract; §2, Table 1] The abstract states that spin-orbit coupling is negligible and has no significant role, but Table 1 lists ζ_SOC = 100–200 meV. These values are orders of magnitude larger than the hyperfine/Zeeman scales at Earth-field strengths (γB0 ≈ μeV), and they are also unrealistically large for organic radical pairs. If ζ_SOC is that large, it dominates the Hamiltonian; if it is truly negligible, it cannot 'engage the spatial states' as claimed. This internal inconsistency affects the dynamics from which P_x is computed and should be resolved.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (9)] The initial spatial state |ψ_spatial⟩ = (1/2)(|g⟩1+|e⟩1)(|g⟩2+|e⟩2) is normalized as written, but the notation is easy to misread; expanding it as (1/2)(|gg⟩+|ge⟩+|eg⟩+|ee⟩) would avoid ambiguity.
  2. [Eq. (12) / Fig. 5 caption] The parameters m and ω are never fully specified: m is absent from Table 1, and ω is given only in the Fig. 5 caption without units. Since the prefactor in Eq. (12) sets the absolute scale of P_x, a quantitative claim about the dipole magnitude requires these values.
  3. [§3.1, Fig. 8] The text says 'at smaller angles, such as θ=π/3 and θ=π/2', but the figure caption lists θ=π/2 for panel (b) and θ=π/3 for panel (c); the sentence should refer to θ=π/3 and θ=π/4. The units of P_x in all figures should also be stated.
  4. [§2, Eq. (6)] The hyperfine term is written only for S1, while the SOC term includes both radicals. If this asymmetry is intentional, it should be justified; if not, the model should include hyperfine coupling for both electrons.
  5. [§3, Fig. 7] The claim that the dual dependence on θ and B0 constitutes a 'magnetic GPS' is an overinterpretation: the model computes a single scalar P_x, not position coordinates, and no transduction mechanism or noise budget is provided.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

Eq. 12 defines the dipole as spin coherence, so B-dependence is by construction; the central magnetic-sensor claim reduces to a renaming of ⟨σ_x⟩.

  1. self definitional [Section 2, Eq. (12)]
    "Generally, the position operator operates in a continuous and infinite-dimensional Hilbert space, but the radical pair system is modeled in bounded and spin-based Hilbert space, so continuous position operators cannot be used directly. Here, the components of the position operator were approximated using spin-state transitions and ladder operators. In other words, the x component of the position operator by the rotating wave approximation (RWA), the energy raising (σ̂+) and lowering (σ̂−) operators, is defined as follows: x̂ = sqrt(ℏ/2mω)(σ̂+ + σ̂−)"

    By Eq. (12), x̂ is stipulated to be (ℏ/2mω)^{1/2}(σ̂+ + σ̂−) = (ℏ/2mω)^{1/2}σ̂_x. Since p = Σ e r_i, the computed P_x = e(ℏ/2mω)^{1/2}⟨σ̂_x⟩ (summed over electrons) is a spin coherence, not a spatial charge displacement. The Hamiltonian (Eq. 6) already contains the Zeeman term γB·(S1+S2), so the B-dependence of ⟨σ̂_x⟩—and hence of P_x—is the input spin dynamics itself. The claim that SOC makes it possible to study 'spatial related observables' is therefore not realized: the dipole operator never acts on the m_l = −1, 0, +1 orbital Hilbert space introduced for SOC. The headline 'induced electric dipole moment clearly depend[s] on the applied magnetic field' is, by construction, a restatement of the well-known B-dependence of radical-pair spin coherence with σ̂_x renamed x̂. No independent s

full rationale

The circularity is concentrated in the construction of the observable. The numerical integration of the von Neumann/Lindblad equations is otherwise self-contained, and no load-bearing self-citation chain is used (ref. [44], by one of the authors, supports only the innocuous statement that temperature is implicit in Γ). However, because Eq. 12 defines the dipole operator as the spin operator, the central result cannot be read as a prediction that an electric dipole emerges from spin-orbit coupling. It is a relabeling of the spin expectation value that was already known to be field-dependent. This is a definitional circularity, not a question of numerical accuracy. If Eq. 12 is merely a stipulated toy-model identification, then the result is true by stipulation; if it is intended as a physical derivation of a real spatial dipole, the derivation is absent. In either reading, the central claim reduces to the input spin Hamiltonian under a change of notation. Score 8 because the central claim itself, not a peripheral detail, is forced by the definition of the observable.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on several hand-picked parameters (hyperfine, SOC, dissipation, oscillator frequency/mass) and on the ad hoc identification of the position operator with spin ladder operators. There are no experimentally calibrated inputs for the dipole magnitude, and the initial spatial state is not normalized.

free parameters (7)
  • Az = 10^-3 γ B0
    Hyperfine coupling constant set relative to Zeeman energy in Table 1; no justification from molecular data.
  • Ax, Ay = Az/2
    Anisotropic hyperfine components chosen by hand (Table 1).
  • ζ_SOC = 100, 200 meV
    Spin-orbit coupling constants chosen in Table 1; claimed negligible in abstract yet large relative to Zeeman/hyperfine; no molecular derivation.
  • ω = 8.3×10^6 (Figure 5 caption)
    Oscillator frequency in position operator Eq. 12; appears only in figure caption, not in Table 1; sets dipole scale.
  • m = unspecified
    Mass in position operator Eq. 12; never assigned a numerical value, so dipole magnitude is not fixed.
  • Γ = 10^6 s^-1
    Dissipation rate in Table 1 chosen to represent physiological temperature; not derived from environment.
  • Initial spatial superposition coefficients = 1/2(|g>+|e>) per radical
    Eq. 9 uses 1/2(|g>+|e>) per radical; coefficient chosen ad hoc.
assumptions (6)
  • ad hoc to paper Position operator can be represented by spin-1/2 ladder operators (RWA, Eq. 12)
    This is the load-bearing identification that turns a spin coherence into an 'electric dipole moment'; no derivation is given.
  • domain assumption Radical pair is formed in a singlet electron spin state and spatial superposition state (Eqs. 7, 9)
    Initial state chosen to match radical pair formation; spatial superposition is an assumption without experimental basis.
  • domain assumption Single spin-1/2 nucleus suffices to model hyperfine interactions
    Stated in Sec. 2; claimed effect of multiple nuclei negligible, but no calculation.
  • domain assumption Orbital angular momentum is a spin-1 system with m_l=-1,0,+1
    Used to build the 72-dimensional Hilbert space; not derived from molecular structure.
  • domain assumption Lindblad master equation with amplitude-damping collapse operators σ± describes physiological decoherence
    Chosen collapse operators dissipate spin, not spatial degrees of freedom; coupling to spatial environment mentioned but not modeled.
  • standard math Axial symmetry φ=0
    Follows ref [2] and Fig. 2; simplification.
invented entities (1)
  • 'Electric dipole moment' operator built from spin ladder operators
    purpose: Provides a B-dependent observable claimed to be a biological signal; independent_evidence: false
    Not a physical spatial charge-separation dipole; no independent experimental handle; defined ad hoc in Eq. 12.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum modeling of radical pair magnetic sensor based on electric dipole moment." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JDP4XSHC

@misc{pith2026251013840,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum modeling of radical pair magnetic sensor based on electric dipole moment},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JDP4XSHC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.13840}
}
read the original abstract

Photoreduction of cryptochrome protein in the retina is a well-known mechanism of navigation of birds through the geomagnetic field, yet the biosignal nature of the mechanism remains unclear. The absorption of blue light by the flavin adenine dinucleotide (FAD) chromophore can alter the distribution of electrons in cryptochrome and create radical pairs with separated charges. In this study, the spin dynamics of electrons in the radical pair including its spin-orbit coupling were investigated by quantum mechanical modeling. Spin-orbit coupling is negligible relative to other terms and has no significant role in the dynamics. However, it engages the spatial states of the radical pair and make possible to study spatial related observables. Several interactions were considered in the presence of an external magnetic field, and the resulting electric dipole moment in cryptochrome was computed as the quantity emerging from this coupling. The computations show the induced electric dipole moment clearly depend on the characteristics of the applied magnetic field even after considering dissipative effects. In fact, our findings indicate that the radical pair in cryptochrome protein is a magnetic biosensor, in the sense that in the presence of the geomagnetic field, variations in spin states can influence its electric dipole moment, which may be interpreted via the bird as an orientation signal. The results can be used in the advancement of bio-inspired technologies which replicate animal magnetic sensitivity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.13840 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the protein cryptochrome and the energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Schematic illustration of spherical coordinates of the geomagnetic field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Time evolution of the x-component of the electric dipole moment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Time evolution of the electric dipole moment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Variations of the electric dipole moment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Variations of the electric dipole moment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: 3D plot representation of Variation of dipole moment with magnetic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Time evolution of the electric dipole moment for different magnetic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Variations of the electric dipole moment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The interaction of stars and magnetic field in the orientation system of night migrating birds

    Wolfgang Wiltschko and Roswitha Wiltschko. The interaction of stars and magnetic field in the orientation system of night migrating birds. i. 22 autumn experiments with european warblers (gen. sylvia).Zeitschrift fur Tierpsychologie, 37(4):337–355, 1975

    1975

  2. [2]

    Bao-Ming Xu, Jian Zou, Jun-Gang Li, and Bin Shao. Estimating the hy- perfine coupling parameters of the avian compass by comprehensively con- sidering the available experimental results.Physical Review E—Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics, 88(3):032703, 2013

    2013

  3. [3]

    The discovery of the use of magnetic navigational information.Journal of Comparative Physiology A, 208(1):9–18, 2022

    Roswitha Wiltschko and Wolfgang Wiltschko. The discovery of the use of magnetic navigational information.Journal of Comparative Physiology A, 208(1):9–18, 2022

    2022

  4. [4]

    Over 50 years of behavioural evidence on the magnetic sense in animals: what has been learnt and how?The European Physical Journal Special Topics, 232(2): 269–278, 2023

    Will T Schneider, Richard A Holland, and Oliver Lindecke. Over 50 years of behavioural evidence on the magnetic sense in animals: what has been learnt and how?The European Physical Journal Special Topics, 232(2): 269–278, 2023

    2023

  5. [5]

    Navigation by magnetic signatures in a realistic model of earth’s magnetic field.Bioinspiration & Biomimetics, 19 (3):036006, 2024

    Jeffrey P Gill and Brian K Taylor. Navigation by magnetic signatures in a realistic model of earth’s magnetic field.Bioinspiration & Biomimetics, 19 (3):036006, 2024

    2024

  6. [6]

    Finding a worm’s internal compass

    Catharine H Rankin and Conny H Lin. Finding a worm’s internal compass. Elife, 4:e09666, 2015

    2015

  7. [7]

    Identifying cellular and molec- ular mechanisms for magnetosensation.Annual review of neuroscience, 40 (1):231–250, 2017

    Benjamin L Clites and Jonathan T Pierce. Identifying cellular and molec- ular mechanisms for magnetosensation.Annual review of neuroscience, 40 (1):231–250, 2017

    2017

  8. [8]

    The symbiotic magnetic-sensing hypoth- esis: do magnetotactic bacteria underlie the magnetic sensing capability of animals?Movement ecology, 5(1):22, 2017

    Eviatar Natan and Yoni Vortman. The symbiotic magnetic-sensing hypoth- esis: do magnetotactic bacteria underlie the magnetic sensing capability of animals?Movement ecology, 5(1):22, 2017. 23

    2017

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Radio frequency magnetic fields disrupt magnetoreception in american cockroach.Journal of Experimental Biology, 212(21):3473–3477, 2009

    Martin V´ acha, Tereza Puzov´ a, and Mark´ eta Kv´ ıcalov´ a. Radio frequency magnetic fields disrupt magnetoreception in american cockroach.Journal of Experimental Biology, 212(21):3473–3477, 2009

    2009

  2. [10]

    Cryptochrome 2 mediates directional magnetoreception in cockroaches.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(6): 1660–1665, 2016

    Olga Bazalova, Marketa Kvicalova, Tereza Valkova, Pavel Slaby, Premysl Bartos, Radek Netusil, Katerina Tomanova, Peter Braeunig, How-Jing Lee, Ivo Sauman, et al. Cryptochrome 2 mediates directional magnetoreception in cockroaches.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences...

    2016

  3. [11]

    Magnetic sensing through the abdomen of the honey bee.Scien- tific reports, 6(1):23657, 2016

    Chao-Hung Liang, Cheng-Long Chuang, Joe-Air Jiang, and En-Cheng Yang. Magnetic sensing through the abdomen of the honey bee.Scien- tific reports, 6(1):23657, 2016

    2016

  4. [12]

    The radical pair mech- anism and the avian chemical compass: Quantum coherence and entangle- ment.International Journal of Quantum Chemistry, 115(19):1327–1341, 2015

    Yiteng Zhang, Gennady P Berman, and Sabre Kais. The radical pair mech- anism and the avian chemical compass: Quantum coherence and entangle- ment.International Journal of Quantum Chemistry, 115(19):1327–1341, 2015

    2015

  5. [13]

    The mag- netic compass of birds: the role of cryptochrome.Frontiers in physiology, 12:667000, 2021

    Roswitha Wiltschko, Christine Nießner, and Wolfgang Wiltschko. The mag- netic compass of birds: the role of cryptochrome.Frontiers in physiology, 12:667000, 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    Magnetoreception in birds

    Roswitha Wiltschko and Wolfgang Wiltschko. Magnetoreception in birds. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 16(158):20190295, 2019

    2019

  7. [15]

    Magne- toreception in fish.Journal of Fish Biology, 95(1):73–91, 2019

    Krzysztof Formicki, Agata Korzelecka-Orkisz, and Adam Ta´ nski. Magne- toreception in fish.Journal of Fish Biology, 95(1):73–91, 2019

    2019

  8. [16]

    Magnetoreception in 24 laboratory mice: sensitivity to extremely low-frequency fields exceeds 33 nt at 30 hz.Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 10(81):20121046, 2013

    Frank S Prato, Dawn Desjardins-Holmes, Lynn D Keenliside, Janice M DeMoor, John A Robertson, and Alex W Thomas. Magnetoreception in 24 laboratory mice: sensitivity to extremely low-frequency fields exceeds 33 nt at 30 hz.Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 10(81):20121046, 2013

    2013

  9. [17]

    Ev- idence for plasticity in magnetic nest-building orientation in laboratory mice.Animal Behaviour, 138:93–100, 2018

    Michael S Painter, Madison Davis, Shruthi Ganesh, Ella Rak, Kelsie Brumet, Hunter Bayne, E Pascal Malkemper, and John B Phillips. Ev- idence for plasticity in magnetic nest-building orientation in laboratory mice.Animal Behaviour, 138:93–100, 2018

    2018

  10. [18]

    Magnetoreception in the wood mouse (apodemus sylvaticus): influence of weak frequency- modulated radio frequency fields.Scientific reports, 5(1):9917, 2015

    E Pascal Malkemper, Stephan HK Eder, Sabine Begall, John B Phillips, Michael Winklhofer, Vlastimil Hart, and Hynek Burda. Magnetoreception in the wood mouse (apodemus sylvaticus): influence of weak frequency- modulated radio frequency fields.Scientific reports, 5(1):9917, 2015

    2015

  11. [19]

    The quantum needle of the avian magnetic compass.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(17):4634–4639, 2016

    Hamish G Hiscock, Susannah Worster, Daniel R Kattnig, Charlotte Steers, Ye Jin, David E Manolopoulos, Henrik Mouritsen, and Peter J Hore. The quantum needle of the avian magnetic compass.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(17):4634–4639, 2016

    2016

  12. [20]

    An open quan- tum system approach to the radical pair mechanism.Scientific reports, 8 (1):15719, 2018

    Betony Adams, Ilya Sinayskiy, and Francesco Petruccione. An open quan- tum system approach to the radical pair mechanism.Scientific reports, 8 (1):15719, 2018

    2018

  13. [21]

    Theoretical insights into the formation and stability of radical oxygen species in cryptochromes.Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 21(17):8874–8882, 2019

    Padmabati Mondal and Miquel Huix-Rotllant. Theoretical insights into the formation and stability of radical oxygen species in cryptochromes.Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, 21(17):8874–8882, 2019

    2019

  14. [22]

    How quantum is radical pair magnetoreception?Faraday discussions, 221: 77–91, 2020

    Thomas P Fay, Lachlan P Lindoy, David E Manolopoulos, and PJ Hore. How quantum is radical pair magnetoreception?Faraday discussions, 221: 77–91, 2020

    2020

  15. [23]

    Electron–electron dipolar inter- 25 action poses a challenge to the radical pair mechanism of magnetoreception

    Nathan S Babcock and Daniel R Kattnig. Electron–electron dipolar inter- 25 action poses a challenge to the radical pair mechanism of magnetoreception. The journal of physical chemistry letters, 11(7):2414–2421, 2020

    2020

  16. [24]

    Quantum sim- ulation of the radical pair dynamics of the avian compass.The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters, 14(3):832–837, 2023

    Yiteng Zhang, Zixuan Hu, Yuchen Wang, and Sabre Kais. Quantum sim- ulation of the radical pair dynamics of the avian compass.The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters, 14(3):832–837, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    Magnetoreception in cryp- tochrome enabled by one-dimensional radical motion.AVS Quantum Sci- ence, 5(2), 2023

    Jessica L Ramsay and Daniel R Kattnig. Magnetoreception in cryp- tochrome enabled by one-dimensional radical motion.AVS Quantum Sci- ence, 5(2), 2023

    2023

  18. [26]

    Direct interaction of avian cryptochrome 4 with a cone specific g-protein.Cells, 11(13):2043, 2022

    Katharina G¨ ortemaker, Chad Yee, Rabea Bart¨ olke, Heide Behrmann, Jan- Oliver Voß, Jessica Schmidt, Jingjing Xu, Vita Solovyeva, Bo Leberecht, Elmar Behrmann, et al. Direct interaction of avian cryptochrome 4 with a cone specific g-protein.Cells, 11(13):2043, 2022

  19. [27]

    Magnetosensitivity of tightly bound radi- cal pairs in cryptochrome is enabled by the quantum zeno effect.Nature Communications, 15(1):10823, 2024

    Matt CJ Denton, Luke D Smith, Wenhao Xu, Jodeci Pugsley, Amelia Toghill, and Daniel R Kattnig. Magnetosensitivity of tightly bound radi- cal pairs in cryptochrome is enabled by the quantum zeno effect.Nature Communications, 15(1):10823, 2024

    2024

  20. [28]

    Amirhosein Sotoodehfar, Hadi Zadeh-Haghighi, Christoph Simon, et al. Quantum theory of a potential biological magnetic field sensor: radical pair mechanism in flavin adenine dinucleotide biradicals.Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal, 26:70–77, 2024

    2024

  21. [29]

    CE Fursman and PJ Hore. Distance determination in spin-correlated rad- ical pairs in photosynthetic reaction centres by electron spin echo envelope modulation.Chemical physics letters, 303(5-6):593–600, 1999

    1999

  22. [30]

    Cryp- 26 tochrome mediates light-dependent magnetosensitivity of drosophila’s cir- cadian clock.PLoS biology, 7(4):e1000086, 2009

    Taishi Yoshii, Margaret Ahmad, and Charlotte Helfrich-F¨ orster. Cryp- 26 tochrome mediates light-dependent magnetosensitivity of drosophila’s cir- cadian clock.PLoS biology, 7(4):e1000086, 2009

    2009

  23. [31]

    P. J. Hore. A dna-based magnetic sensor.ACS Central Sci- ence, 4(3):318–320, 2018. doi: 10.1021/acscentsci.8b00091. URL https://doi.org/10.1021/acscentsci.8b00091. PMID: 29632876

    2018 doi

  24. [32]

    Role of exchange and dipolar interactions in the radical pair model of the avian magnetic compass.Biophysical journal, 94(5):1565–1574, 2008

    Olga Efimova and PJ Hore. Role of exchange and dipolar interactions in the radical pair model of the avian magnetic compass.Biophysical journal, 94(5):1565–1574, 2008

    2008

  25. [33]

    Quantum-mechanical in- sights into the anisotropic response of the cryptochrome radical pair to a weak magnetic field.The Journal of Chemical Physics, 158(3), 2023

    Victor Bezchastnov and Tatiana Domratcheva. Quantum-mechanical in- sights into the anisotropic response of the cryptochrome radical pair to a weak magnetic field.The Journal of Chemical Physics, 158(3), 2023

    2023

  26. [34]

    Isotope substitution effects on the magnetic compass properties of cryptochrome-based radical pairs: a computational study.The Journal of Physical Chemistry B, 127(4):838–845, 2023

    Gediminas Jurgis Pazera, Philip Benjamin, Henrik Mouritsen, and PJ Hore. Isotope substitution effects on the magnetic compass properties of cryptochrome-based radical pairs: a computational study.The Journal of Physical Chemistry B, 127(4):838–845, 2023

    2023

  27. [35]

    Radical-pair model of magnetoreception with spin–orbit coupling.New Journal of Physics, 15(8):083024, 2013

    Neill Lambert, Simone De Liberato, Clive Emary, and Franco Nori. Radical-pair model of magnetoreception with spin–orbit coupling.New Journal of Physics, 15(8):083024, 2013

    2013

  28. [36]

    The radical-pair mechanism of mag- netoreception.Annual review of biophysics, 45(1):299–344, 2016

    Peter J Hore and Henrik Mouritsen. The radical-pair mechanism of mag- netoreception.Annual review of biophysics, 45(1):299–344, 2016

    2016

  29. [37]

    A new type of radical-pair-based model for magnetoreception.Biophysical journal, 102(5):961–968, 2012

    A Marshall Stoneham, Erik M Gauger, Kyriakos Porfyrakis, Simon C Ben- jamin, and Brendon W Lovett. A new type of radical-pair-based model for magnetoreception.Biophysical journal, 102(5):961–968, 2012

    2012

  30. [38]

    27 Physical constraints for the stoneham model for light-dependent magne- toreception.arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.7369, 2014

    Jofre Espigul´ e-Pons, Christoph Goetz, Alipasha Vaziri, and Markus Arndt. 27 Physical constraints for the stoneham model for light-dependent magne- toreception.arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.7369, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Nonspecific magnetic biological effects: A model assuming the spin-orbit coupling.The Journal of chemical physics, 151(20), 2019

    VN Binhi. Nonspecific magnetic biological effects: A model assuming the spin-orbit coupling.The Journal of chemical physics, 151(20), 2019

    2019

  32. [40]

    OUP Oxford, 2002

    Heinz-Peter Breuer and Francesco Petruccione.The theory of open quantum systems. OUP Oxford, 2002

    2002

  33. [41]

    Crown, 2016

    Johnjoe McFadden and Jim Al-Khalili.Life on the edge: the coming of age of quantum biology. Crown, 2016

    2016

  34. [42]

    Reaction kinetics and mechanism of magnetic field effects in cryptochrome.The Journal of Physical Chemistry B, 116(3):1089–1099, 2012

    Ilia A Solov’yov and Klaus Schulten. Reaction kinetics and mechanism of magnetic field effects in cryptochrome.The Journal of Physical Chemistry B, 116(3):1089–1099, 2012

    2012

  35. [43]

    Upper bound on the biological effects of 50/60 hz magnetic fields mediated by radical pairs.Elife, 8:e44179, 2019

    Peter J Hore. Upper bound on the biological effects of 50/60 hz magnetic fields mediated by radical pairs.Elife, 8:e44179, 2019

    2019

  36. [44]

    Clausius inequality versus quantum coherence.The European Physical Journal Plus, 134(6):282, 2019

    Ali Soltanmanesh and Afshin Shafiee. Clausius inequality versus quantum coherence.The European Physical Journal Plus, 134(6):282, 2019. 28

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.