Nobel Prize Winner Says DNA Performs Quantum Teleportation 347
HJED writes "TechWorld is reporting that the joint winner of the Nobel Prize for medicine in 2008, Luc Montagnier, is claiming that DNA can send 'electromagnetic imprints' of itself into distant cells and fluids which can then be used by enzymes to create copies of the original DNA. This would be equivalent to quantum teleportation. You can read the original paper here [PDF]."
umm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. It doesn't matter how an idea sounds. If it's right then it's right.
Re:umm (Score:4, Insightful)
By the same token, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Even brilliant scientists can sadly find themselves a few bricks short of load. Roger Penrose has humiliated himself with his quantum mind nonsense, and Fred Hoyle's cosmological contributions were overshadowed by his rejection of evolution (quite out of his area of expertise) and advocating of panspermia.
Re:umm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:umm (Score:5, Insightful)
Roger Penrose has humiliated himself with his quantum mind nonsense
A claim like that requires some substantiation.
I know it's official policy on slashdot to believe unequivocally in hard AI and the fucking singularity, but that doesn't mean it's true and it certainly doesn't mean it's nonsense to come up with counter arguments.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:umm (Score:5, Funny)
It does raise my suspicions that he listed 'TimeCube' in his citations attached to the paper.
Re:umm (Score:5, Funny)
Re:umm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:umm (Score:5, Insightful)
The 'apparatus' is pretty impressive. I'd expect this out of an eighth grade science fair experiment but "coil made up of copper wire, 300 ohms". That's it? That's all you need? We've all completely missed this one?
I know there is a long lead time on scientific publications but April 1st is still a ways in the future.
Re:umm (Score:5, Informative)
Re:umm (Score:5, Informative)
My head asplode.
Re:umm (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:umm (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:umm (Score:5, Informative)
From TFA:
They did in fact answer all your concerns, and I would think that the fact that the generator turned off resulted in a negative trial addresses most of your concerns about contamination... they shouldn't have gotten a negative for basically ANY of those variables if it was just contamination.
Re:umm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:umm (Score:5, Interesting)
It's called the Nobel Disease [scienceblogs.com]. The Nobel Prize is one of the highest prizes awarded in science, so it seems like some scientists think that once they have it, the only way to top their previous work is to escape the confines of reality entirely.
It doesn't turn out well, most of the time.
Re:umm (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Alternative hypothesis is that nutters sometimes have a real advantage in discovering the truly unexpected, and thus win Nobel Prizes. That doesn't stop them being nutters. Overstated, I know, but you see what I mean.
Are you referring to Kary Mullis [wikipedia.org]? :) Anyway, I agree - this does seem a good possibility. If you have to think outside the box too much, sometimes you fall out.
Re: (Score:3)
Now see, I find that fascinating! The question is why? Do they really think they can now be "scientists" (method be damned) by attempting to be a pioneer without fear of ridicule and reprisal? Or, has the fame of the elite Nobel prize got them so drunk with fame and fortune that they will now say and do anything among the ignorant?
Well one clue is that they usually move into a field that they know little about, but (I guess) think that they completely understand. So, for example, a physicist tries his hand at research into intelligence and determines that people with black skin should not breed because they are idiots (or some such foolishness).
I don't think it is limited to Nobel winners either. It also happens to older/retired scientists, who feel free to pursue new topics. Much of the time this is a good thing; sometimes you get g
the dullness of Krugman (Score:3)
Krugman's economic views are coherent, not terribly deep, and potentially wrong, yet he does a more credible job of putting his ideas forward than the people who hate his ideas most (of putting their own ideas forward).
In this context, "potentially wrong" is a merit point, as distinct from ideological views, which are never wrong.
I see no reason to lump Krugman in with a flagrant quack. One of his least deep observations is that "fiscal restraint" in government does a lot more to serve the mid to long term
Re: (Score:3)
No. Start with a premise that people have the right to do business with each other, consensually as long as neither force nor fraud is involved.
That is an ideological argument not an economic one. Also, it is still the equivalent of starting with the conclusion and massaging everything else with the goal of arriving there, just like the GP said.
Oh, now I see! (Score:3, Funny)
God sent his seed into Mary via Quantum Teleportation! That's how Jesus came to be! But don't give in to Quantum Temptation...or you'll end up in Hell!
Re:Oh, now I see! (Score:5, Funny)
or you'll end up in Hell!
That's ok, I'll just tunnel back out.
Re: (Score:3)
But don't give in to Quantum Temptation...or you'll end up in Hell!
Re:Oh, now I see! (Score:4, Funny)
>
Undead cats, until you look at them at least.
Re:Oh, now I see! (Score:5, Funny)
Hell has quantum cat-poo. You don't know if it's there until you step in it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, I thought there either will or won't be cats in Hell, and that the existence of said cats will not in fact occur or fail to occur until you observe Hell. On the other hand, one could argue the same for the existence or lack of existence of Hell itself, which is a rather interesting twist. Perhaps Heaven and Hell are some sort of quantum states, the superposition of which the universe exists in simultaneously. Or perhaps I should just stop posting random thoughts late at night.
Not the first, won't be the last (Score:5, Insightful)
Winning a Nobel Prize does not give you a lifetime immunity from saying anything idiotic. It doesn't even prevent you from putting idiotic things into the arxiv. One might think there were a negative correlation between being smart enough to win a prize and stupid enough to say something idiotic in public, but the data suggests otherwise. Winning the Nobel seems to give some of these guys the confidence they need to make complete asses of themselves.
I am a particle physicist, and needless to say, the theory proposed in this paper is laughably stupid. The authors have no understanding of quantum field theory, and their observations are a sad combination of wishful thinking and poor experimental design.
Re: (Score:3)
They also gave one to war criminal Henry Kissinger, and one to genocide apologist Teddy Roosevelt -- I don't think it was ever all that honorable. One must imagine that, had he won, Hitler would have gotten one.
Misleading title? Say it ain't so! (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, scientists observed something that makes them say "hmm... that's strange," which leads them to say "hmm... I wonder what could be causing this?" These researchers tried to explain the phenomenon using the best tools that they thought that had: quantum mechanics. (classical EM theory is pretty useless for fields this weak) The linked article is behind a wall, but the title seems to start with "Scorn over claim of teleported DNA"
Again from the paper: "In this paper we have described the experiments showing a new property of DNA and the induction of electromagnetic waves in water dilutions. We have briefly depicted the theoretical scheme which can explain qualitatively the features observed in these experiments." Crazy observed phenomenon explained by theories that aren't fully accurate? No way!
The current scientific media seems to increasingly favor sensationalist titles that enable their readers to go "hah, those stupid eggheads, I know better than them that X/Y/Z is impossible! I are smarts!" and this seems to be no different. There is not, has not, and likely will not, be any claims that DNA teleports. However, there has been, is, and likely will be, evidence that DNA interacts with factors beyond easy and simple comprehension. These interactions seem to resemble "phase-locking regime[s]" observed in "two superconducting samples or in the arrays of Josephson junctions," which is pretty far from quack science.
Re:Misleading title? Say it ain't so! (Score:5)
However, there has been, is, and likely will be, evidence that DNA interacts with factors beyond easy and simple comprehension. These interactions seem to resemble "phase-locking regime[s]" observed in "two superconducting samples or in the arrays of Josephson junctions," which is pretty far from quack science.
Really? I would like to see some citations where DNA interacts with any other molecule by any mechanism other than enzyme-substrate noncovalent binding.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
However, there has been, is, and likely will be, evidence that DNA interacts with factors beyond easy and simple comprehension. These interactions seem to resemble "phase-locking regime[s]" observed in "two superconducting samples or in the arrays of Josephson junctions," which is pretty far from quack science.
Really? I would like to see some citations where DNA interacts with any other molecule by any mechanism other than enzyme-substrate noncovalent binding.
I don't know about anybody else, but that thing you just said is beyond easy and simple comprehension to my mind...
Re: (Score:3)
It's actually pretty simple, but I have a PhD in chemistry, so I might be biased
Probably not biased, since I don't have a PhD in anything and understood it. Though I do have a slightly higher than layman science background (specialized in philosophy of science).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not DNA, but it has been shown that Chlorophyll implements a type of superconducting behavior using quantum coherence.
See: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100510151356.htm
Re: (Score:3)
And then you go and compare their (Sarovar, Ishizaki, Whaley and Fleming's) papers to Montagnier's, and you pretty much know who did the science, and who is just pretending.
Re: (Score:3)
Really? I would like to see some citations where DNA interacts with any other molecule by any mechanism other than enzyme-substrate noncovalent binding.
Well, there are Van der Walls [wikipedia.org] interactions. Just to be pedantic. This is Slashdot after all.
Re:Misleading title? Say it ain't so! (Score:4, Insightful)
Really? I would like to see some citations where DNA interacts with any other molecule by any mechanism other than enzyme-substrate noncovalent binding.
Plenty of citations to keep you busy for a while. [google.com]
I think I know what you meant, but the statement as you made it was remarkably silly.
Re: (Score:3)
Really? I would like to see some citations where DNA interacts with any other molecule by any mechanism other than enzyme-substrate noncovalent binding.
Plenty of citations to keep you busy for a while. [google.com]
I think I know what you meant, but the statement as you made it was remarkably silly.
Yes, DNA can be methylated, Sherlock. The requirement is that DNA interact with another molecule, not become another molecule.
More like questionable caliber (Score:5, Insightful)
The paper is in Arxiv, and has not been peer-reviewed. They refer to Craig Venter as "G. Vinter." I won't hold my breath until these results are replicated by third parties.
Re:More like questionable caliber (Score:5, Funny)
The paper is in Arxiv, and has not been peer-reviewed. They refer to Craig Venter as "G. Vinter." I won't hold my breath until these results are replicated by third parties.
The only way this is going to get replicated by third parties is after the party has been going on for a long, long time and aqueous dilutions of certain organic solvents have been extensively studied by all involved.
Re:Misleading title? Say it ain't so! (Score:5, Insightful)
Even worse than the armchair layman criticism is the armchair layman over-excitement. I'm imagining that within a year, if it's not out already, there will be a book published called something like, "Unlocking the Quantum Secrets of Your DNA" which cites this article as proof that humans have ESP/telekinesis/magic voodoo powers embedded in their genetic code. If we could only unlock the 90% of our brains that most humans never use*, imagine what we could do with our powers of teleportation!
* I hate that myth. Every time I hear it from someone, I want to say, "Well, maybe you're not using that 90%, but I sure as shit am." Probably comes from the proportion of the brain tissue comprised of glial cells.
Re: (Score:3)
* I hate that myth. Every time I hear it from someone, I want to say, "Well, maybe you're not using that 90%, but I sure as shit am."
I'm curious. What medications did your physician prescribe for your epilepsy?
A better question: How is he using someone else's extra 90%? Quantum Telepathy?
Re: (Score:3)
I don't remember; I was busy setting all of the logic circuits in my computer to 1.
Re: (Score:3)
Get back to me when (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, very snarky. You will be sorry when it turns out the author is right and you go on a data plan when you die!
Re: (Score:2)
New excuse ... (Score:5, Funny)
"Honest! My DNA teleported into her. I never touched her. I swear it."
Re: (Score:3)
Re:New excuse ... (Score:5, Funny)
So... you mod the parent 4, funny, for making a tasteless joke about rape, that's not even funny, and you mod down the person that calls them out. Not cool, guys.
Sounds like someone has some issues. Show us, on this doll, where the DNA teleported into you...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not necessarily about rape. Could be interpreted as contesting paternity, ie no coercion at time of sex but denying child is his. Is that more palatable?
Simplified (Score:5, Informative)
My background is strictly biology, so a lot of the physics stuff goes over my head, but I can decipher the sciencey jargon well enough to read the paper. Anyway, here's what they saw:
bacterial DNA in tube 1 -> water tube surrounded by 7hz field -> tube 2 containing PCR ingredients minus template -> recovery of bacterial DNA sequence from tube 2
The explanation, as you may have guessed, is super complicated. It involves the hypothetical creation of so-called water nanostructures (water memory anyone?), but apparently the ~7hz field is important and recapitulated in the math somehow that's opaque to me.
So that's the paper for dummies, so to speak. If anyone can elaborate or correct in simple terms I'd be happy to read it; this is cool stuff.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
> The explanation, as you may have guessed, is super complicated.
Really? The explanation I guessed is pretty simple: "We spilled some bacteria in tube 2."
Bacteria are everywhere. No need to even spill anything.
Try it again with cow DNA, Mister Nobel Scientist guy. You'd probably notice if there were spare cows wandering about the lab.
Re:Simplified (Score:4, Interesting)
I think you missed the part where not having DNA in tube 1, not having the coil, not having the coil powered up, etc. all yielded negative results. Unless they just happened to spill bacteria on all 12 out of 12 positive trials, and spill none on the dozens of negative control trials, which is relatively improbable.
It is not quantum teleportation (Score:5, Informative)
I just read the original article, and it is not claiming quantum teleportation.
It is claiming that electromagnetic resonances are set up around polymers in water solution, and if the water contains the right building blocks (monomers), then the resonances can reconstruct copies of the original polymers. This apparently occurs even if there are physical barriers separating the polymers from the monomer solution.
The article relies on quantum mechanics only to the extent that certain quantum mechanical models of water molecule behavior (coherence domains) are used, since "classical" models that rely on energy levels are not sufficient. There is no claim of teleportation that I could see.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hm, now that sounds reasonable, if somewhat weird. If it holds up under further examination and applies to polymers other than DNA, it might have some terrifically useful applications in industrial chemical synthesis.
Industrial chemical synthesis (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
OK, I misread (Score:4, Informative)
When I first read this story I misread the first line and though the scientist had won the Nobel Prize for this research. Later I realized I recognized his name. Luc Montagnier, FWIW, won the Prize in 2008 for being the first to isolate HIV (at a time when its exact role in AIDS was unknown). He's since remained pretty prominent in HIV/AIDS research.
This other research, however, seems a lot more fringe-y and questionable, and now that I know the Nobel Committee has not endorsed it I will view it with a serious dose of skepticism until his findings can be repeated.
An Archimedes moment of sorts. (Score:2)
After reading this article, one word comes to mind. I think it sums up all 10 pages, and especially the slashdot summery quite well.
BULLSHIT.
Cough, cough... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Cough, cough... (Score:5, Informative)
From TFA:
So, not so much. Unless by "play with" you mean "dismiss offhand". I really don't get why so many people in the commentary are being completely dismissive of this as new age nonsense. He's not obviously trying to push an agenda in the paper as far as I could tell. It really seems like he saw some weird effects and documented them, and that's all. Either he's flat out lying, or he really saw something odd which hasn't been fully explained. Why assume that he's lying before any independent trials are done?
WTF? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's an interesting claim. Most of the DNA molecules would somehow have to be in sync to get audio-frequency waveforms out. How's that supposed to happen?
I can't speak for the physics, but the experimental setup seems bogus. See Fig. 1. They have a coil with a test tube inside it. The coil is connected to an audio amplifier and then to the audio input on a laptop, where some frequency analysis takes place. They claim that a solution of DNA in water emits signals which can be read by that setup.
A setup like that is enormously sensitive to any electric or magnetic fields in the vicinity, mechanical vibration, and even mechanical motion of conductive objects, like fan blades. Like most low-level RF experiments, something like that has to be conducted in a electrically and mechanically quiet area. (RF engineers use either RF-shielded rooms or wooden boxes/sheds in open fields.)
The history of "polywater" [wikipedia.org] is relevant here. There, it was for a while thought that water could somehow polymerize and change properties. It turned out to be a contamination problem. Here, the authors talk about previously unknown "nanostructures" in water.
Re: (Score:3)
Monster Cables for the win! It's the only way this will work.
next Dilbert episode (Score:2)
Dilbert:
Ashok: aaaaaaaa! [jumps out of window]
Pointy haired boss: I like it!
Well at least I can explain to my wife... (Score:5, Funny)
...how I got her best friend pregnant.
Once Again.... (Score:5, Insightful)
arXiv is NOT peer-reviewed, and anyone can put anything up there. (Okay, that's an exaggeration, but it lacks the intrinsic rigor of a peer-reviewed journal.) It's the Wikipedia of science papers.
While arXiv is filled with some neat (and some not-so-neat) ideas for science fiction writers, I'd be reluctant (to put it mildly) to give credence to anything that sounds weird that resides there. Seriously, I know some cool stuff appears there, but we've been through this before. When is /.'s staff going to stop citing arXiv papers as being somehow more plausible than the Dean drive?
the wavelength is larger than the lab (Score:3, Informative)
This is pretty nonsensical. At 7 Hz the wavelength for sound in water would be hundreds of meters and light would be many order of magnitude more. How would such an em field be involved in forming nanometer resolution structures in water?
This is yet another case of wild extrapolation from measurements that are at or beyond the limits of the tools being used.
What is expected is found. (Score:4, Interesting)
I would have more faith in this experiment if the genetic testing of the "receiving tubes" was done by a person other than the one who ran the experiments on them. Maybe he found what he was looking for because he expected it to be found.
just make sure (Score:3)
there are no flies in the vicinity when you try it
Re:Quite Cool (Score:5, Insightful)
Quite honestly, I don't possess the science background to really critique the paper and have to rely on the man's credentials to find this believable.
I do have the background. It is unbelievable. Even IgNobel Prize winners are laughing at this.
Re: (Score:2)
Because IgNobel isn't about bad science, just odd ranging to silly science. (I imagine the parent knows this, just pointing it out for those that don't know)
Re: (Score:3)
A lot of people laughed at Tesla too. Only took 100 years to prove the man right, for the most part.
No, it only took a few years to prove him right on the things he was right about. They're still working on the things he was wrong about.
Re:Quite Cool (Score:4, Insightful)
More to the point, Tesla's ideas for wireless transmission of energy miss the reality by orders of magnitude. They don't hold up to simple electromagnetic propagation calculations (path loss, for one).
Re:Quite Cool (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of people laughed at Tesla too. Only took 100 years to prove the man right, for the most part.
So... basically you're saying that anyone who gets laughed at because of their theories must be right, because Tesla got laughed at and he ended up being right?
I think you'll get laughed at if you try to present that correlation as being meaningful. But, on the bright side - they laughed at Tesla, so you must be right!
Re:Quite Cool (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Quite honestly, I don't possess the science background to really critique the paper and have to rely on the man's credentials to find this believable.
Welcome to the state that 98% of humanity is always in regarding anything beyond highschool science. Remember that magicians are only respected when they produce fantastic results or are feared. Otherwise, wizards are reviled, pitied, and laughed at.
Re: (Score:2)
And you think that spamming this 3 or 4 times on slashdot is going to help? GTFO.
Re: (Score:2)
If this is true,
It's not true. But that has never stopped charlatans and quacks before. Why would a little thing like lack of truth stop them this time? The world is full of gullible people just begging to be separated from their money.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean "we"?
Re: (Score:2)
perhaps our laureate was paid by senor homoeopathy to plonk this doozy in the arxiv?
Re:John Hagelin is right, the unified field is you (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want to make sense of the Unified Field and you want to know who John Hagelin is
...then you need to read more James Randi and less new age crackpottery.
Seriously - this is a guy who claims that if enough people in a city do TM meditation, crime rates will fall and a Vedic Defense Shield will prevent them from war.
John Hagelin appeals to people who think What the Bleep Do We Know and The Secret were science documentaries.
Re:John Hagelin is right, the unified field is you (Score:5, Funny)
Seriously - this is a guy who claims that if enough people in a city do TM meditation, crime rates will fall
This could easily be true. The criminals are too busy meditating to be able to commit the crimes...
Re:John Hagelin is right, the unified field is you (Score:5, Funny)
John Hagelin appeals to people who think What the Bleep Do We Know and The Secret were science documentaries.
Hey now. Scoff all you like, but The Secret helped me manifest a twelve inch pianist.
Re: (Score:3)
Hey now. Scoff all you like, but The Secret helped me manifest a twelve inch pianist.
I believe that is spelled penis, and I doubt it.
But if you stop and think about it, the 12" pianist claim does seem a lot more believable, doesn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Except the point is that if enough people meditate regularly -- the original idea was 20 minutes, twice a day -- then you can live an otherwise normal life, but it'll lower crime.
I grew up in Fairfield, IA. I was somewhat disappointed when I checked out the skepdic entry on TM only to find that the strongest debunk was James Randi calling up the Fairfield Police Department and asking whether the influx of meditators had reduced crime. Nope, crime rates had increased if anything, but were pretty typical eith
Re: (Score:3)
This Hagelin fellow is intruiging.
He used to work on pretty sophisticated and legitimate science where he did some valuable research and now he working for the Maharishi trying to link things like meditation with actual physics.
What has caused such a dramatic change?
Seems that after he joined the Maharishi movement, he still did some things that were actually scientific and his approach to politics is still a lot more scientific than the ruling political parties in the US.
I'd just like to know how he can co
Re: (Score:3)
So... erm... Let's see the evidence. Having skimmed the paper, I just don't see it claiming what Hagelin claims.
I was a meditator for years. I grew up in it. I'm better off without it now, but I'd still very much like to be proven wrong, if only because it'd be really cool to know how humans can levitate, if, in fact, they can.
Re:John Hagelin is right, the unified field is you (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, people can levitate. To understand how, a separation of mysticism, mythology, and technology must be maintained.
You can watch a magician (mysticism) make a human float, and he/she will have the audience believing exactly what they saw.
You can hear and read about how a religious figure (mythology) floated.
And then you can be taught (technology) hundreds of ways to make a person levitate. theatrical flying harnesses [flyingfx.com], forced air [ttp], glass floor/ceiling and perspective [goo.gl]. How about not just a person, but an entire train full of people [goo.gl]? Even something as simple (and expensive, and stupid) as hanging from a rope under a helicopter (ala Robert Downey Jr in Air America).
Illusionists by a variety of names have been making people believe in impossible things. All it takes is an audience to believe the mysticism or mythology, before asking to understand the technology. Too many people are willing to believe the "miracle" answer, without understanding the technological answer.
If I read your comment right, you've grown beyond the mysticism answers. If we can only drag a few billion other people past the threshold, humanity would be in good shape.
Re: (Score:3)
When I see a real guru fly in a way unexplainable by technology, magic carpet or otherwise, I'll agree with you. There are plenty of people who have dedicated their lives to such pursuits. Most of them say that they aren't worthy, therefore were not able to accomplish it, or they'll tell you that it happened.
I've been around quite a bit, and I have yet to see anyone floating without a technological method to accomplish it. And no, saying "it doesn't work because you don't be
Re: (Score:3)
I do meditate (not daily), but I don't believe in any of the supernatural benefits either. I was prescribed yoga lessons by a physician for spinal arthritis about thirty five years ago, and it was the only prescription I ever got that was better than over the counter analgesics. But it isn't magic. Yoga is about relaxing, stretching, breathing. Nothing supernatural about its effects on arthritis.
As to levitating and that other nonsense, I can't figure out how people can possibly believe any of it. Although
Re: (Score:2)
Beam me up, Scotty!