Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
Wang et al. (2007) conclude that:
[I]nitial photosynthetic charge separation is limited by protein dynamics rather than by a
static electron transfer barrier
...
which seems to support the predictions made by the generalized Franck-Condon
principle that the fast electron transfer processes would be rate-limited by the slow
conformational changes of the proteins constituting the photosynthetic reaction
centers. The results of Wang et al. (2007) may turn out to be the strongest experi-
mental support so far for the validity of the GFCP as applied to enzymic processes.
2.3 Complementarity
2.3.1 Complementarity vs. Supplementarity
The term “complementary” first appears in William James' topic,
Principles of
Psychology
(1890), in the context of the idea that human consciousness consists of
two parts:
[I]n certain persons, atleast, the total possible consciousness may be split into parts which
coexist but mutually ignore each other, and share the objects of knowledge between them.
More remarkable still, they are
complementary
...
.
There is a great similarity between the concept of complementarity that James
introduced into psychology in 1890 and that Bohr introduced into physics about
four decades later. Whether Bohr's
complementarity
was influenced directly or
indirectly by James' notion of
complementarity
is a challenging question for
philosophers of science to answer.
The concept of complementarity emerged in 1926-1927 from the intense
discussions that transpired between Bohr and his then-assistant Heisenberg in the
wake of the latter's discovery of the
matrix mechanics
and
uncertainty relations
(Lindley 2008). Bohr discussed his philosophy of
complementarity
in public for the
first time at a meeting held in Como, Italy, in 1927 and published the first paper on
complementarity in 1928 (Bohr 1928; Camillieri 2007). In 1958, Bohr summarized
the concepts of
supplementarity
and
complementarity
as follows (Bohr 1958):
Within the scope of classical physics, all characteristic properties of a given object can in
principle be ascertained by a single experimental arrangement, although in practice various
arrangements are often convenient for the study of different aspects of the phenomenon. In
fact, data obtained in such a way simply supplement each other and
can be combined
into a
consistent picture of the behavior of the object under investigation. In quantum mechanics,
however, evidence about atomic objects obtained by different experimental arrangements
exhibits a novel kind of
complementary relationship
.
(2.29)
Indeed, it must be recognized that such evidence which appears contradictory when
combination into a single picture is attempted exhausts all conceivable knowledge about
the object. Far from restricting our efforts to put questions to nature in the form of
experiments, the notion of
complementarity
simply characterizes the answers we can
receive by such inquiry, whenever
the interaction between the measuring instruments
and the objects forms an integral part of the phenomenon
...
(my italics)
