5 ms·

Experimental evidence supportive of the quantum DNA model

11 points by nahuel0x 6y ago

dekhn 6y ago
This is straight-up psuedoscience written to look like it's real science. The editors of the "journal" that accepted it should be embarassed.
- codezero 6y ago
  It looks like these are conference proceedings - not a journal article, it's basically front matter for a presentation at a conference and isn't necessarily peer reviewed. Things must have changed a bit, back in my day SPIE was for optics, but I guess I only went to those kinds of parties, there may have been some quantum DNA people doing some stuff :)
koeng 6y ago
They have culture A and culture B, but they don't have culture C and culture D, acting as negative controls. Since they don't have negative controls, their experiments don't really show anything...
- Gatsky 6y ago
  Came here to say this. Experimental design is flawed. The laser electronics are probably interfering with the electrodes.
  - dekhn 6y ago
    Uhhhh... I stopped at the abstract. It's describing an insane scientific concept with literally no preexisting support. Even if the experimental design wasn't flawed, the results wouldn't convince anybody that what the author claims is true.
thelazydogsback 6y ago
GPT-3? :) "The DNA molecule can be modeled as a quantum logic processor in which electron spin qubits are held coherently in each nucleotide in a logically and thermodynamically reversible enantiomeric symmetry, and can be coherently conducted along the pi-stacking interactions of aromatic nucleotide bases, while simultaneously being spin-filtered via the helicity of the DNA molecule. Entangled electron pairs can be separated by that spin-filtering, held coherently at biological temperatures in the topologically insulated nucleotide quantum gates, and incorporated into separate DNA strands during DNA replication."
- codezero 6y ago
  I think scientific papers in any field could look like GPT-3 to a lot of people, given all the jargon, yet clean structure and flow. Never attribute to GPT-3 that which can be attributed to a scientist churning out papers to get funding. Then again, if this turns out to be GPT-3, I don't want to have to swallow that pill :)
  - mdturnerphys 6y ago
    As an illustration, see http://snarxiv.org/vs-arxiv/ http://snarxiv.org/vs-arxiv/
- elmo2you 6y ago
  This certainly bends the needle on my bamboozle bullshit meter. They sure crammed a maximum amount of specialized words in there. Words that a majority of people will not understand. After reading just this excerpt, I instantly lost the nerve and patience to read the actual article. If the purpose of (written) communication is to transfers ideas, then this convoluted word salad certainly miserably failed at it. But, I get the impression that the intention here is exactly the opposite, to convey absolutely nothing while pretending to be something complex and hard to understand. 99 out of a 100 (if not more), that kind of pattern indicates a intentional scam, of which there are plenty on fringes of science communities. Not being able to follow a science paper as the result of inadequate knowledge, regarding concepts and/or jargon, is one thing. Creating bullshit sentences like these is very much another.
fabian2k 6y ago
This really doesn't look like a real biology paper, and the content is essentially pseudoscience. I don't know enough physics to reliably distinguish gibberish from real physics, but I know biology and that part certainly doesn't make any sense. One very telling aspect is the lack of a proper experimental section, and the extremely bad figures. In a real paper you wouldn't find figures without axis labels. You can hardly see anything in the figures in this paper. Not repeating the experiment several times on different cell culture batches is also not a good sign. As is the lack of control experiments. The whole thing doesn't make any sense, it's an extremely far-fetched hypothesis anyway. And the paper takes enormous leaps based on extremely flimsy data.
occamrazor 6y ago
Summary of the paper: They grew some neuronal rat cells, split the cell colony in two parts, shone a laser on one part and measured an effect on the second part, even if they were separated. The effect persisted when the first half was anesthetized. The proposed explanation is that the DNA of the first half is somehow entangled with the DNA of the second half. Either the authors win a Nobel prize, or this paper is bs. My intuition leans towards the latter.

11 points by nahuel0x 6y ago

This is straight-up psuedoscience written to look like it's real science. The editors of the "journal" that accepted it should be embarassed.

codezero 6y ago
It looks like these are conference proceedings - not a journal article, it's basically front matter for a presentation at a conference and isn't necessarily peer reviewed. Things must have changed a bit, back in my day SPIE was for optics, but I guess I only went to those kinds of parties, there may have been some quantum DNA people doing some stuff :)

koeng 6y ago

They have culture A and culture B, but they don't have culture C and culture D, acting as negative controls. Since they don't have negative controls, their experiments don't really show anything...

Gatsky 6y ago
Came here to say this. Experimental design is flawed. The laser electronics are probably interfering with the electrodes.
- dekhn 6y ago
  Uhhhh... I stopped at the abstract. It's describing an insane scientific concept with literally no preexisting support. Even if the experimental design wasn't flawed, the results wouldn't convince anybody that what the author claims is true.

thelazydogsback 6y ago

GPT-3? :) "The DNA molecule can be modeled as a quantum logic processor in which electron spin qubits are held coherently in each nucleotide in a logically and thermodynamically reversible enantiomeric symmetry, and can be coherently conducted along the pi-stacking interactions of aromatic nucleotide bases, while simultaneously being spin-filtered via the helicity of the DNA molecule. Entangled electron pairs can be separated by that spin-filtering, held coherently at biological temperatures in the topologically insulated nucleotide quantum gates, and incorporated into separate DNA strands during DNA replication."

codezero 6y ago
I think scientific papers in any field could look like GPT-3 to a lot of people, given all the jargon, yet clean structure and flow. Never attribute to GPT-3 that which can be attributed to a scientist churning out papers to get funding. Then again, if this turns out to be GPT-3, I don't want to have to swallow that pill :)
- mdturnerphys 6y ago
  As an illustration, see http://snarxiv.org/vs-arxiv/ http://snarxiv.org/vs-arxiv/
elmo2you 6y ago
This certainly bends the needle on my bamboozle bullshit meter. They sure crammed a maximum amount of specialized words in there. Words that a majority of people will not understand. After reading just this excerpt, I instantly lost the nerve and patience to read the actual article. If the purpose of (written) communication is to transfers ideas, then this convoluted word salad certainly miserably failed at it. But, I get the impression that the intention here is exactly the opposite, to convey absolutely nothing while pretending to be something complex and hard to understand. 99 out of a 100 (if not more), that kind of pattern indicates a intentional scam, of which there are plenty on fringes of science communities. Not being able to follow a science paper as the result of inadequate knowledge, regarding concepts and/or jargon, is one thing. Creating bullshit sentences like these is very much another.

fabian2k 6y ago

This really doesn't look like a real biology paper, and the content is essentially pseudoscience. I don't know enough physics to reliably distinguish gibberish from real physics, but I know biology and that part certainly doesn't make any sense. One very telling aspect is the lack of a proper experimental section, and the extremely bad figures. In a real paper you wouldn't find figures without axis labels. You can hardly see anything in the figures in this paper. Not repeating the experiment several times on different cell culture batches is also not a good sign. As is the lack of control experiments. The whole thing doesn't make any sense, it's an extremely far-fetched hypothesis anyway. And the paper takes enormous leaps based on extremely flimsy data.

occamrazor 6y ago

Summary of the paper: They grew some neuronal rat cells, split the cell colony in two parts, shone a laser on one part and measured an effect on the second part, even if they were separated. The effect persisted when the first half was anesthetized. The proposed explanation is that the DNA of the first half is somehow entangled with the DNA of the second half. Either the authors win a Nobel prize, or this paper is bs. My intuition leans towards the latter.