Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Nobel Prize Winner Says DNA Performs Quantum Teleportation

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the giant-book-that's-hidden-inside-you dept.

Biotech 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]."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

John Hagelin is right, the unified field is you. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34857498)

If you want to make sense of the Unified Field and you want to know who John Hagelin is, you can learn about it by watching these series of YouTube videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuuKBlnwQRU&feature=related [youtube.com]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrcWntw9juM&feature=related [youtube.com]

I also want to say John Wheeler had the right idea with the Anthropic Principle. [wikipedia.org]

 

Re:John Hagelin is right, the unified field is you (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857914)

Beam me up, Scotty!

Re:I Heard a Cry (2)

Walter Wart (181556) | more than 3 years ago | (#34858046)

...as if a million bat-scat crazy homeopaths and refused to be silenced.

John Hagelin is right, the unified field is you. (-1, Redundant)

elucido (870205) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857504)

If you want to make sense of the Unified Field and you want to know who John Hagelin is, you can learn about it by watching these series of YouTube videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuuKBlnwQRU&feature=related [youtube.com]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrcWntw9juM&feature=related [youtube.com]

I also want to say John Wheeler had the right idea with the Anthropic Principle. [wikipedia.org]

 

Re:John Hagelin is right, the unified field is you (5, Insightful)

afabbro (33948) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857750)

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 (5, Funny)

GigaplexNZ (1233886) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857790)

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 (4, Funny)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857808)

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:John Hagelin is right, the unified field is you (0)

NEDHead (1651195) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857842)

I believe that is spelled penis, and I doubt it.

Re:John Hagelin is right, the unified field is you (2)

RobertM1968 (951074) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857952)

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:John Hagelin is right, the unified field is you (1)

The Mighty Buzzard (878441) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857824)

Depends on if the criminals are doing TM meditation too, I guess. Hard to stick up a liquor store and meditate at the same.

Re:John Hagelin is right, the unified field is you (2)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 3 years ago | (#34858084)

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 either way.

It's a good argument, but I'm kind of disappointed. I'm going to have to deconstruct it sometime. It seems to get either respected or ignored, never seriously challenged other than people saying, "You think people can fly?" and laughing hysterically. It's not really a threat, so I can see why other absurdities would be a bigger target, but it also means the meditators themselves never have to really think hard about why they believe what they do.

Re:John Hagelin is right, the unified field is you (2)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 3 years ago | (#34858100)

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.

umm (4, Insightful)

nomadic (141991) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857514)

I am no geneticist, biophysicist, or organic chemist, but...this sounds wacky, even by Nobel laureate (who tend to go for the fringe ideas after they win) standards.

Re:umm (2, Insightful)

elucido (870205) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857538)

Exactly. It doesn't matter how an idea sounds. If it's right then it's right.

Re:umm (1)

justsomebody (525308) | more than 3 years ago | (#34858038)

and if it is right... i just have to learn how to do it cooperatively, so i can finally abandon walking.

Re:umm (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34858066)

*cough* elucido did not read the article (it's a disaster)

Re:umm (3, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#34858160)

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 (5, Funny)

hoggoth (414195) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857746)

It does raise my suspicions that he listed 'TimeCube' in his citations attached to the paper.

Re:umm (5, Funny)

popeyethesailor (325796) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857848)

Dude, you made me RTFA - that's unfair :/

Re:umm (5, Insightful)

DebateG (1001165) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857870)

I am a biologist by trade, and I can say that this paper is very, very poorly done. If it was submitted to any major journal in the field, the peer reviewers would tear it to shreds. Here is the big experiment: 1) Take DNA and place it in tube #1 diluted around 1 million fold 2) Separate it from tube #2 containing all the building blocks of DNA, but not properly assembled 3) In between tube #1 and tube #2 is a special piece of metal 4) Subject the entire thing to low frequency magnetic field 5) There is an induction of the DNA to emit oscillatory radiation 6) DNA replicate magically appears in tube #2 from the building blocks I can buy the assertion that DNA at certain dilution transmits some strange radiation. It's step 5 to 6 that I think is complete and utter garbage. They don't do the proper controls for step 4 to 5. What happens when no DNA is present in tube #1? What happens when there is no inducing field? What happens when the building blocks are present in tube #2? They clearly know that this is an issue because they do the exact controls from steps 4 to 5. The "synthesis" of new DNA can easily be explained by one explanation: contamination. DNA sequencing techniques are sensitive enough to detect one or two copies of that sequence. If any of their reagents, tools, or lab members got even a single molecule of DNA on them and transferred it to tube #2, they would see that result. This is a basic fact that pretty much all molecular biologist learns (usually the hard way, by accidentally contaminating something of importance). To give the authors the benefit of the doubt, I'll go ahead and say they have successfully duped Slashdot with a hoax spoofing the claims of homeopathy.

Re:umm (4, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857910)

Yes, this is good. Very good. Just because he can't separate out a mycobacterium from a virus he has to come up with some completely left field explanation?

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 (1, Insightful)

DontLickJesus (1141027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34858060)

I agree that these controls should probably be presented in the paper, but a layman could assume someone would attempt this multiple times before publishing.

I'm not saying this guy is right. However, aside contamination, wouldn't the only other explanation be that genetic material has assembled itself out of nowhere? If I remember correctly science has yet to observe that phenomenon, so I can understand why the author would be looking to other sources.

Using terms like "New Facts" hurt the author's credibility, as do the lack of proper controls. But, let the man research. Calling this a hoax is to dismiss the entire process and set aside something potentially life changing.

Even better, send your comments and suggestions directly to the author: vitiello/at/sa.infn.it

Help him become better, don't just criticize the idea.

Re:umm (5, Informative)

DebateG (1001165) | more than 3 years ago | (#34858074)

I take back my assertion that this is a hoax. Apparently, this Nobel Prize laureate has a history [quackometer.net] of producing very tenuous science on this topic. I think he's actually serious, which is pretty sad.

Re:umm (4, Informative)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#34858104)

From your link:

There are many problems with the paper, not least that it is pretty much self-published in a journal without rigorous peer-review (it took two days from ‘receipt’ of the paper to publishing) and the journal was set up and edited by Montagnier himself.

My head asplode.

Re:umm (-1, Flamebait)

Suki I (1546431) | more than 3 years ago | (#34858162)

I take back my assertion that this is a hoax. Apparently, this Nobel Prize laureate has a history [quackometer.net] of producing very tenuous science on this topic. I think he's actually serious, which is pretty sad.

The Krugman of biology? Someone alert the Science Desk of the New York Times!

Re:umm (1)

Suki I (1546431) | more than 3 years ago | (#34858138)

I am no geneticist, biophysicist, or organic chemist, but...this sounds wacky, even by Nobel laureate (who tend to go for the fringe ideas after they win) standards.

Krugman won a Nobel Prize too you know. It is no guarantee of brilliance.

Re:umm (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 3 years ago | (#34858168)

The Economics Nobel Prize isn't a real one, though. Krugman is actually one of the few recipients of it I have respect for.

You are the unified field of existence. (-1, Redundant)

elucido (870205) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857522)

John Hagelin developed the supersymmetric flipped SU(5) model of Grand Unified Theory.

http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/178057/files/198706298.pdf [cdsweb.cern.ch]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuuKBInwQRU&feature=related [youtube.com]
According to John Hagelin, consciousness is the unified field.

Re:You are the unified field of existence. (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857700)

And you think that spamming this 3 or 4 times on slashdot is going to help? GTFO.

Oh, now I see! (3, Funny)

Gizzmonic (412910) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857534)

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! (4, Funny)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857560)

or you'll end up in Hell!

That's ok, I'll just tunnel back out.

Re:Oh, now I see! (2)

Rhinobird (151521) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857688)

But don't give in to Quantum Temptation...or you'll end up in Hell!

...Maybe. Either way there'll be cats.

Re:Oh, now I see! (3, Funny)

Merls the Sneaky (1031058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857706)

>

...Maybe. Either way there'll be cats.

Undead cats, until you look at them at least.

Re:Oh, now I see! (5, Funny)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857942)

Hell has quantum cat-poo. You don't know if it's there until you step in it.

Quite Cool (0)

techsoldaten (309296) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857540)

I did not know my DNA was doing that :)

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. While the idea that cells can somehow send and receive signals about their DNA sequences is beautiful and could explain a lot, this sounds like the reasoning of a scientist biased by living in a wireless culture. Like, this would be Tesla's explanation for transsubstantiation - it's marvelous and at the same time very connected to other technological innovations in the world around us.

Re:Quite Cool (4, Insightful)

paiute (550198) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857576)

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:Quite Cool (0)

teknopurge (199509) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857888)

A lot of people laughed at Tesla too. Only took 100 years to prove the man right, for the most part.

Re:Quite Cool (2)

leighklotz (192300) | more than 3 years ago | (#34858076)

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 (4, Insightful)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 3 years ago | (#34858094)

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 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34857898)

IgNobels are given to real science, it just also happens to be silly, wacky, or fun science.

Re:Quite Cool (1)

Randle_Revar (229304) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857912)

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)

Not the first, won't be the last (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34857552)

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:Not the first, won't be the last (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34857936)

Winning the Nobel seems to give some of these guys the confidence they need to make complete asses of themselves.

Or maybe it's less about confidence and more about the pragmatic consideration of not losing their job. An adjunct instructor at a community college could probably advocate an idea that was almost certainly wrong without having much to lose (but no one would notice) - but someone with a faculty position at a major research university probably has to maintain a veneer of being level-headed - unless they happen to have a Nobel prize and then they can let it all hang out without worrying finding that they are no longer like a large pizza (able to feed a family of four).

Misleading title? Say it ain't so! (5, Insightful)

Myji Humoz (1535565) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857554)

From the freaking paper: "Some bacterial and viral DNA sequences have been found to induce low frequency electromagnetic waves in high aqueous dilutions. This phenomenon appears to be triggered by the ambient electromagnetic background of very low frequency. We discuss this phenomenon in the framework of quantum field theory."

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. /rantover

Re:Misleading title? Say it ain't so! (4)

paiute (550198) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857612)

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:Misleading title? Say it ain't so! (2, Insightful)

fishexe (168879) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857654)

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:Misleading title? Say it ain't so! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34858010)

It's actually pretty simple, but I have a PhD in chemistry, so I might be biased

Re:Misleading title? Say it ain't so! (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34858064)

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:Misleading title? Say it ain't so! (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#34858128)

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.

More like questionable caliber (4, Insightful)

Atmchicago (555403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857686)

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 (4, Funny)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857944)

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! (4, Insightful)

guyminuslife (1349809) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857762)

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:Misleading title? Say it ain't so! (0)

The_mad_linguist (1019680) | more than 3 years ago | (#34858110)

* 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?

Get back to me when (3, Funny)

mswhippingboy (754599) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857586)

they figure out a way to connect my WiFi to my DNA so I can use my body to connect to the internet and stop paying these ridiculous 3G prices.

Re:Get back to me when (1)

techsoldaten (309296) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857634)

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:Get back to me when (1)

FooAtWFU (699187) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857774)

Don't be silly. Being able to wi-fi with your DNA won't save you a penny on your Internet connection, because you'll still need a base station. You can skip the hardware upgrade cycle, though.

New excuse ... (5, Funny)

ignavus (213578) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857590)

"Honest! My DNA teleported into her. I never touched her. I swear it."

Rape is fucking hilarious. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34857744)

Keep joking about it. Please!

Re:New excuse ... (1, Troll)

progkeys (253222) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857798)

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.

Re:New excuse ... (5, Funny)

Arthur Grumbine (1086397) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857904)

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:New excuse ... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34858082)

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?

Re:New excuse ... (1)

FrankSchwab (675585) | more than 3 years ago | (#34858150)

Where in that joke is even the implication of rape?

Re:New excuse ... (1)

martas (1439879) | more than 3 years ago | (#34858156)

+1 stick up ass, a.k.a. mis-calibrated offensiveness detector

new ammo for the atheist vs. creationist war on yt (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34857640)

hahaha... god.. i love me some crazy creationist on yt...

CHRISTIANITY IS SUPERIOR TO ALL OTHER RELIGIONS

EVOLUTION IS A GEGENERATE SCIENCE

SIEG HEIL JESUS

is how i fuck yt creationists in the ass... rhetorical... :D

Simplified (5, Informative)

mibe (1778804) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857644)

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:Simplified (2)

Phat_Tony (661117) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857736)

This sounds familiar [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Simplified (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857950)

Very. You remember the "yogurt experiment"?

Re:Simplified (1)

teknopurge (199509) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857966)

2 words: Schumann Resonance. I wonder if there is a relationship to life taking hold on this planet and the OP's intreguing discovery...

Re:Simplified (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34857968)

> 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."

Re:Simplified (1)

mibe (1778804) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857992)

Of course your explanation may differ from the one given, but (again) as you may have guessed, they aren't going to put forward "we messed up" as an explanation, so something considerably more complicated must be invoked.

Re:Simplified (2)

SQL Error (16383) | more than 3 years ago | (#34858106)

> 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.

You can have a cake and eat it too. (1)

louzer (1006689) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857680)

If this is true, then medical quacks and new age groups are going to have a field day using this as the justification for everything mystical and magical. I bet they will make a lotaf money by quoting this Nobel Laureate.

Re:You can have a cake and eat it too. (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857724)

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:You can have a cake and eat it too. (1)

Godskitchen (1017786) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857776)

Seriously. Remember when we used to think vaccines could cause autism! Sheesh. What idiots we were!

Re:You can have a cake and eat it too. (1)

Randle_Revar (229304) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857922)

What do you mean "we"?

Re:You can have a cake and eat it too. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34857726)

If this is true, then medical quacks and new age groups are going to have a field day using this as the justification for everything mystical and magical. I bet they will make a lotaf money by quoting this Nobel Laureate.

Take off the first five words and it'll probably still happen (minus the money being low on taffy)

Re:You can have a cake and eat it too. (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857748)

They already do regardless.

Re:You can have a cake and eat it too. (1)

mug funky (910186) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857752)

perhaps our laureate was paid by senor homoeopathy to plonk this doozy in the arxiv?

It is not quantum teleportation (5, Informative)

cjonslashdot (904508) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857728)

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:It is not quantum teleportation (1)

cosm (1072588) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857822)

But then it doesn't sound cool! If only mainstream media would realize that what is considered 'dry' is still actually quite amazing when you think about it. I believe the concept of the electromagnetic field permeating charged objects and exerting 'spooky-action-at-a-distance' is just as captivating as 'teleportation'.

Re:It is not quantum teleportation (1)

Angst Badger (8636) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857826)

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 (1)

handy_vandal (606174) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857860)

A beowulf cluster of water sprites, performing genetic algorithm computation using genetic material.

Re:It is not quantum teleportation (2)

moteyalpha (1228680) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857866)

I did not RTFA, but I have worked with DNA and protein affinities and it is fairly obvious that there is more going on than just local electrostatic attractions. I don't doubt that more is going on, but to characterize it as quantum teleportation is likely more to do with getting read than serious assertion. It seems that quantum teleportation is the new buzz word that people like. It won't materialize ( pun intended ).

Re:It is not quantum teleportation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34857972)

Scaled up, if the effect is real, the process would allow factories to create plastic oligomers from monomers in large quantities without the currently expensive reaction processes required to do so.

I need more power... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34857734)

to the transporters!

OK, I misread (3, Informative)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857738)

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.

Re:OK, I misread (1)

dimethylxanthine (946092) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857836)

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.

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

An Archimedes moment of sorts. (1)

Sitnalta (1051230) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857780)

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... (4, Interesting)

mesri (993588) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857784)

To put it simply, this is BS, on all levels. The summary is just wrong, teleportation doesn't even appear in the article on arXiv. But then the arXiv article is ridiculous. It's a thinly veiled attempt to play with homeopathy: "high dilutions", "mechanical agitation between each dilution", and low frequency EM taking the place of "concussing", "water nanostructures" formed on the DNA which can be used to recreate the DNA sequence? And the paper is totally amateur hour. In summary: It's BS.

WTF? (4, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857792)

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:WTF? (2)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857974)

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.)

Monster Cables for the win! It's the only way this will work.

FTFA (0)

mswhippingboy (754599) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857800)

Full details of the experiments are not yet available, but the basic set-up is as follows. Two adjacent but physically separate test tubes were placed within a copper coil and subjected to a very weak extremely low frequency electromagnetic field of 7 hertz. The apparatus was isolated from Earth's natural magnetic field to stop it interfering with the experiment. One tube contained a fragment of DNA around 100 bases long; the second tube contained pure water.

After 16 to 18 hours, both samples were independently subjected to the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), a method routinely used to amplify traces of DNA by using enzymes to make many copies of the original material. The gene fragment was apparently recovered from both tubes, even though one should have contained just water (see diagram).

DNA was only recovered if the original solution of DNA - whose concentration has not been revealed - had been subjected to several dilution cycles before being placed in the magnetic field. In each cycle it was diluted 10-fold, and "ghost" DNA was only recovered after between seven and 12 dilutions of the original. It was not found at the ultra-high dilutions used in homeopathy.

Physicists in Montagnier's team suggest that DNA emits low-frequency electromagnetic waves which imprint the structure of the molecule onto the water. This structure, they claim, is preserved and amplified through quantum coherence effects, and because it mimics the shape of the original DNA, the enzymes in the PCR process mistake it for DNA itself, and somehow use it as a template to make DNA matching that which "sent" the signal (arxiv.org/abs/1012.5166).

All I can say is, pretty spooky action at a distance!

"has not been revealed"? (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 3 years ago | (#34858120)

DNA was only recovered if the original solution of DNA - whose concentration has not been revealed - had been subjected to several dilution cycles before being placed in the magnetic field.

I thought the point of publishing was that we could replicate your experiments? Is it normal to withhold information like this?

Eons ago! (1)

Atmanman (1651259) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857838)

Okay. I'll try. So, like, a really, really long time ago, the life force we call Chi permeated the universe. The Green Chi generated a great upwelling of life across the cosmos. Electromagnetic Panspermia Theory anyone?

next Dilbert episode (1)

Odinlake (1057938) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857906)

[silence]
Dilbert: ...-quantum!
Ashok: aaaaaaaa! [jumps out of window]
Pointy haired boss: I like it!

my mind is vibrating at 7Hz (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34857934)

This is what happens when you roll a marijuana cigarette using your Nobel Prize paper.

Misleading Summary. (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34857938)

The word "teleportation" does not appear anywhere in the original article. Seems like another case of media misinterpreting scientific articles to fit popular pseudoscience notions. The findings are about electromagnetic "signals". The signals may remotely affect other DNA molecules, causing them to emulate the original molecule. How is that teleportation?

Well at least I can explain to my wife... (4, Funny)

F34nor (321515) | more than 3 years ago | (#34857960)

...how I got her best friend pregnant.

Well hey now... (1)

Essequemodeia (1030028) | more than 3 years ago | (#34858050)

Looks like I've got some new ammo for those paternity test results. Those little quantum-tunneling buggers! Nothing in space-time could have held them back!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?