Look, the arxiv isn't a science archive as much as an archive for those who gets sponsors to admit what the authors thinks is interesting. It _could_ be science, but you have to filter it strongly to pick up signal among noise.
This is noise. Montagnier is crackpot on this, and his 'experiments' have been soundly laughed out. They don't do what he claims, there are no controls IIRC, et cetera. Bears all the hallmark of pathological science - pattern searching confirmation instead of testing against.
This theoretical paper is the same. They assume electrons correlate along DNA,* in the same way they do in, say, benzene rings or chlorophyll antenna complexes.** But DNA isn't regular as long as it codes for different genes. (As opposed to many times over multiplied pseudogenes, transposons, repeats, et cetera.) That is the point of it after all.
So no long range correlations to be expected, as opposed to the untested model they fling out to explain observations that is not.
Science is what works. Reporting on pathological science doesn't work to promote science. A magazine will do whatever it takes to be read and sell ad space; the rest of us have better ignore it.

Luc Montagnier received a newspaper “Komsomolskaya pravda” (from January, 27th, 2011) that published an article about Luc Montagnier and his discovery.
Luc Montagnier expressed his appreciation of the attention to his discovery.
The conference had a wide coverage in the European press and television. According to the opinion of conference participants, experiments of Luc Montagnier’s experiments open a great perspective of application of the natural phenomena in medicine, biology, veterinary, pharmacy, agriculture and other fields.
Luc Montagnier’s discovery is compared with the discovery of electromagnetic fields by British scientist Maxwell that changed the scientific notion of the world.
A day before the conference, on the 16th of February, Luc Montagnier together with Michael Zhadin and Natalya Bobkova conducted an experiment on remote transferring of properties of human’s DNA.
In the report Luc Montagnier announced that his experiments were based on brilliant discoveries of Russian scientist Michael Zhadin, Italian scientist Gulliano Preparata and French scientist Jacques Benveniste.
Now DST Fund is holding negotiations with the conference organizers concerning joint work on the project of remote transmission of substances’ properties.

4. Wave transmission of DNA genetic information to water.
The next phase of the experimentation proved truly remarkable, for it comes close to challenging the tenet of biology, sometimes known as Redi’s principle, and also strongly defended by Pasteur, that all life comes from life (omne vivum ex vivo). Yet, a closer analysis will demonstrate that it is not the truth of the principle, but what we mean by “life” which is actually challenged by the results. In experiments reported by Montagnier at a 2010 conference in Lindau, a tube of pure water, when exposed to a second tube emitting signals, was made to emit signals, and then to cause DNA sequences placed into the pure water to assemble into sequences similar to those of the original emitting organism. Because of its importance we will summarize the experiment in as much detail as is available. As reported in a 2010 paper on the experiment, [L. Montagnier, J. Aissa, E. Del Giudice, C. Lavalee, A. Tedeschi, and G. Vitiello,“DNA waves and water.”] a fragment of DNA taken from the long terminal repeat of the AIDS virus (HIV) was used as the source. (The long terminal repeat is a portion of the DNA found in retroviruses that repeats itself many times over.) The fragment was then amplified by the PCR technique, in which a naturally derived enzyme, known as polymerase, artificially stimulates the DNA to reproduce many copies of itself when the nucleotides and other raw materials are supplied. Dilutions of the PCR-amplified DNA solution were then made, as in earlier experiments, until an electromagnetic signal was detected. The contents of the tube were then filtered through 450-nm and 20-nm porosity filters, and diluted from 10-2 to 10-15. A second tube containing pure water was subjected to the same filtration and dilutions. The tubes were then placed near to one another inside a horizontally oriented copper coil or solenoid (Figure 3). The solenoid and tubes are placed inside a container shielded by a 1-mm-thick layer of mu-metal. A low-intensity electric current oscillating at 7 Hz was then fed to the solenoid from an external generator for 18 hours at room temperature. When the tube containing pure water was removed after 18 hours, it was found to emit signals, as did the tube containing the diluted filtrate of viral DNA. No emission occurred under the following conditions:
• Time of exposure less than 16-18 hours
• No coil
• Generator turned off
• Frequency of excitation less than 7 Hz
• Absence of DNA in the first tube.
Now comes the most remarkable step. The ingredients for synthesizing DNA by the polymerase chain reaction (nucleotides, primers, polymerase) were added to the tube containing the pure water. It is expected that the PCR reaction should require the presence of at least one copy of the DNA segment which is to be reproduced, to serve as an initial template for DNA amplification. This was not added. The PCR reaction was then performed in the usual way by cycled exposure to heat. The result was that the DNA produced from the tube initially containing pure water was of the expected size and 98 percent identical in sequence to the original DNA sequence from the long terminal repeat of the HIV. Out of 104 nucleotides (the molecules which join together to make up the DNA structure), only two were different from the original. The experiment was reproducible and successful in 12 out of 12 tries. It was successfully repeated with a DNA sequence from a bacterium, Borrelia burgdorferi, the spirocspirochete responsible for Lyme disease.

This is a nice example of why peer review is, although being the best process currently available to evaluate the quality of a scientific paper, still far from perfect. Here, a big name was all it needed to publish a paper. A superb take-down was given by professor PZ Myers. Since some people on this site might be fainthearted, I'll edit out his lucid language where appropriate. Visit the site for the full tour-de-force.

Let us begin with his summary of the work:

Montagnier claims in several papers that the DNA of pathogenic bacteria emits an electromagnetic signal, and further, that if you dilute that DNA homeopathically so that no DNA is actually present, the water continues to emit that same signal. Further, if you put two vials of homeopathically diluted EMS emitting water next to each other, the signal can move from one to another. And further, only bacteria and viruses pathogenic to humans produce this signal; ordinary E. coli does not. [...]

There is no sensible explanation given for this phenomenon, only some wild-eyed speculation that water molecules can form long polymers of dipoles associated by hydrogen bonds that may be self-maintained by the electromagnetic radiations they are emitting. [...]

Note: This has actually been disproved in the lab. Water has no long term memory. This question was also handled on this site

I'm not going to criticize the paper because it postulates a mysterious mechanism with no coherent physical cause, though. I read the paper and call it [bad] by virtue of the sloppiness of the work. I disbelieve it, not because I'm predisposed to find it unlikely (although I do), but because it's an appallingly bad paper.

What follows is a lengthy description of the experiments and data processing done by Montagnier, and PZ doesn't look to kindly at this. His conclusion:

There are a couple of other indicators that this is pathological science. They're looking at a minuscule, variable result that is prone to be picking up all kinds of irrelevant signals, yet nowhere in the entire paper can I find the word blind. This is the kind of experiment that demands extreme rigor and care, yet the authors don't even bother to describe the protocols used. That's a warning sign.

There is another methodological problem that makes this paper suspicious:

They are claiming the existence of a truly remarkable phenomenon. A good scientist would focus on one fundamental observation, the claim that they can record species-specific bacterial signals with their crude apparatus, and nail that one down good and hard and believably. But no. They show off some very poor raw data and then rush off to dilute the experiment a trillion fold and claim to see the same signal. I found the first observation dubious, why are you showing me something even more unlikely?

Although the paper has been published in a peer-reviewed journal, there are even more problems:

And finally, another suspicious sign are the dates. This paper was submitted on 3 January 2009, revised on 5 January 2009, and accepted on 6 January 2009. That's an unbelievable turnaround, especially for a paper with such incredible results, and the revisions must have been trivial to be able to be whipped around in a day. Yet it's an awful paper that I would have shredded in a sea of red ink if it had come to me. Who reviewed this, the author's mother? Maybe someone even closer. Guess who the chairman of the editorial board is: Luc Montagnier.

The original reference:

Montagnier L, Aissa J, Ferris S, Montagnier J-L, Lavallee C (2009) Electromagnetic Signals Are Produced by Aqueous Nanostructures Derived from Bacterial DNA Sequences. Interdiscip Sci Comput Life Sci 1: 81-90.

www.lib.ua-ru.net/diss/cont/47011.html С проявлением синхронизации можно встретиться в физике, биологии, химии, технике, экономике, науках о жизни, медицине и т.д. Возможна синхронизация как двух элементов так и в ансамблях, состоящих из сотен и тысяч элементов. В радиофизике интенсивно исследуется коллективное поведение лазеров , микроволновых генераторов , сверхпроводящих джозефсоновских контактов . В радиотехнике, радиоизмерениях и радиосвязи синхронизация используется для синтеза и стабилизации частоты генераторов, для демодуляции сигналов в доплеровских системах, в системах точного времени и т.д. . В механике эффект синхронизации нашел широкое применение при конструировании различных вибро-технических устройств . В качестве примеров биологических ансамблей, в которых наблюдается синхронизация приведем: колонии одновременно вспыхивающих светлячков ; клетки, формирующие сердечный ритм ; вырабатывающие инсулин клетки в поджелудочной железе; группы сверчков, щебечущих в унисон ; ячейки в тонкой кишке млекопитающих ; нейронные ансамбли, обеспечивающие ритмичную деятельность в мозгу и т.д. Проблемы синхронизации также очень важны при проектировании компьютеров с параллельной архитектурой . Синхронизации имеет место в химических колебаниях и волнах в реакции Белоусова-Жаботинского .

*дец Гаряеву:

и обсуждаем вариант проверки теории на стволовых клетках

мешки таскать - это не по клаве стучать...

РР написал(а):
Тем более, когда получить положительный результат по определению невозможно.