<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[Azimuth]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[John Baez]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/author/johncarlosbaez/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[Quantum Techniques for Studying Equilibrium in Reaction&nbsp;Networks]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p>&nbsp;</p>
<div align="center">
<img width="350" src="https://i2.wp.com/cmbe-cpms.anu.edu.au/files/Brendan_Fong.jpg" />
</div>
<p>The summer before last, I invited <a href="http://www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/show/Brendan+Fong">Brendan Fong</a> to Singapore to work with me on my new &#8216;network theory&#8217; project.  He quickly came up with a nice new proof of a result about mathematical chemistry.  We <a href="https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2011/09/13/network-theory-part-9/">blogged about it</a>, and I added it to my <a href="http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/stoch_stable.pdf">book</a>, but then he became a grad student at Oxford and got distracted by other kinds of networks&#8212;namely, Bayesian networks.</p>
<p>So, we&#8217;ve just now finally written up this result as a self-contained paper:</p>
<p>&bull; John Baez and Brendan Fong, <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.4988">Quantum techniques for studying equilibrium in reaction networks</a>.</p>
<p>Check it out and let us know if you spot mistakes or stuff that&#8217;s not clear!  </p>
<p>The idea, in brief, is to use math from quantum field theory to give a somewhat new proof of the <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.3042">Anderson&#8211;Craciun&#8211;Kurtz theorem</a>.  </p>
<p>This remarkable result says that in many cases, we can start with an equilibrium solution of the &#8216;rate equation&#8217; which describes the behavior of chemical reactions in a <i>deterministic</i> way in the limit of a <i>large numbers</i> of molecules, and get an equilibrium solution of the &#8216;master equation&#8217; which describes chemical reactions <i>probabilistically</i> for <i>any</i> number of molecules.  </p>
<p>The trick, in our approach, is to start with a chemical reaction network, which is something like this:</p>
<div align="center">
<img src="https://i0.wp.com/math.ucr.edu/home/baez/networks/chemical_reaction_network_part_20_VI.png" />
</div>
<p>and use it to write down a Hamiltonian describing the time evolution of the probability that you have various numbers of each kind of molecule: A, B, C, D, E, &#8230;   Using ideas from quantum mechanics, we can write this Hamiltonian in terms of annihilation and creation operators&#8212;even though our problem involves probability theory, not quantum mechanics!  Then we can write down the equilibrium solution as a &#8216;coherent state&#8217;.  In quantum mechanics, that&#8217;s a quantum state that approximates a classical one as well as possible.  </p>
<div align="center"><a href="http://www.av8n.com/physics/coherent-states.htm"><br />
<img width="450" src="https://i1.wp.com/www.av8n.com/physics/img48/glauber-movie.gif" /></a>
</div>
<p>All this is part of a larger plan to take tricks from quantum mechanics and apply them to &#8216;stochastic mechanics&#8217;, simply by working with real numbers representing probabilities instead of complex numbers representing amplitudes!</p>
<p>I should add that Brendan&#8217;s work on Bayesian networks is also very cool, and I plan to talk about it here and even work it into the grand network theory project I have in mind.   But this may take quite a long time, so for now you should read his paper:</p>
<p>&bull; Brendan Fong, <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.6201">Causal theories: a categorical perspective on Bayesian networks</a>.</p>
]]></html><thumbnail_url><![CDATA[https://i2.wp.com/cmbe-cpms.anu.edu.au/files/Brendan_Fong.jpg?fit=440%2C330]]></thumbnail_url><thumbnail_height><![CDATA[293]]></thumbnail_height><thumbnail_width><![CDATA[440]]></thumbnail_width></oembed>