Я вовсе не нас имел в виду. Докажите международному сообществу. Когда я увижу Ваши статьи в Science и Natue, тогда и буду всерьёз думать о физических механизмах переноса генетической информации электромагнитными волнами, звуком и чем угодно.

Что касается экспериментов, то истории науки известны сотни удивительных открытий, которые на поверку оказывались ошибками эксперимента, стечением обстоятельств, а так же случайной или преднамеренной подтасовкой фактов. Поэтому нет никаких оснований что-либо утверждать на основе сомнительно проведённых и не подтверждённых экспериментов. Тем более, что для подтверждения этих экспериментов авторы активно привлекают явно неправильные физические теории. Всё это позволяет квалифицировать эту деятельность как лженаучную

А как бы все изменилось, будь хоть одно подтверждение экспериментальных результатов. Но нету - ни на заборах, ни в публикациях...

Истина не зависит от места ее публикации.

Тоже перечислял - Quantum Electronics, Laser Physics, Proc. SPIE, Intern. Journ. Comp. Anticipatory Systems, Liege, Belgium; Кр. сообщ. по физике ФИАН, БЭБиМ, Вестник неврол., психиатр. и нейрохир. и других.

Лимарь тут выложил ворох зарубежных статей по квантовым подходам, в т.ч. кв. нелокальным, к биосистемам и их ген. аппарату.

Истина в науке устанавливается путём доказательства её экспертам.

Там либо нет Ваших нестандартных идей, либо они изложены не в профильных журналах, либо в журналах, не могущих претендовать на солидность. Всерьёз говорить о таких экспериментальных результатах нельзя

Какие ЯВНО неправильные физические теориИ мы привлекли? Теорию торсионных полей? Тут насчет ЯВНО - явно неправльно. Явный ярлык. Во всем мире работают с торсионными полями и над нами смеются - рады, что прошло гинсбург-оболванивание.

Она квалифицирует вас, увы, как лжеученого.

Вы смешиваете в кучу нормальные работы и фантастические.

Вот и чудненько. А то мне тоже надоело политес разводить.

Если часто повторять слово дерьмо - во рту сладко не станет НИКОГДА

В Одессе в прошлом году был симпозиум по торсиооным полям. Народу бездна, результатов экспериментов и того больше. Неужто не заметил... слона?

Вот и славненько- Никто никогда не подтвердил ваши эксперименты.

Так ить большое видится на расстоянии

Не путайте - у нас нормальная, здоровая пища. А вы жуйте, жуйте. Трансмутация теоретически возможна - получите леденец за пятачок, если жевать пару миллиардов лет.

Okay, well I happen to do quantum chemical studies of biochemical systems. So I'm a quantum biochemist, but I'm loathe to use that term precisely because there's so much nonsense (ranging from pure nonsense to pseudoscience to bad science to real science) going on under that moniker, and most of which is present in this tread as well.

E.g. Quantum Evolution is nonsense IMO. I'm very skeptical that Bieberich's model and experiment are accurate enough to measure what he thinks he's measuring. I don't believe it. On the other hand, Weitao Yang (who I've met) is a giant within quantum chemistry and certainly credible (although his research is on the development of linear-scaling DFT methods, which are applicable to large molecules, not DNA per se).

The question Is QM significant to biochemistry? is difficult to answer because it's ill-defined.
All of chemistry is fundamentally based on quantum mechanics. Chemical bonding is a quantum-mechanical phenomenon. So in that sense, QM is definitely significant.
However, if you're wondering whether QM has some 'special' significance to biochemistry, as opposed to all other chemistry, then my answer is a strong no. Biochemistry does not differ in any significant way from other chemical systems, it follows the same rules.

For lack of a better word, the worst of the 'quantum-biochemistry' stuff (i.e. pseudoscience/new-age nonsense) is 'neo-vitalist'. I.e. trying to make the claim that biological molecules are somehow fundamentally different from other ones, due to some vague/unlikely/incorrect quantum-mechanical mechanism. The best of it is legitimate research, but shouldn't be interpreted in any way as support for the former.

Now to be specific, quantum mechanics is vital to understanding:
- Reactions
- Chemical bonding
- Electronic structure
- Absorption and emission of light/radiation
- Electron and energy transfer kinetics (i.e. speeds)

So when you're talking about the absorption of light, or the transfer of electrons or energy, it is obviously a quantum-mechanical process. There is simply no classical theory of this whatsoever. And in the case of energy and electron transfer kinetics, this is even outside the realm of traditional chemistry, as these things could not be studied either theoretically or experimentally until quite recently.

But this is the same for the rest of chemistry as well.

Which is why I take issue with this particular statement (emphasized above):

This contrasts with the long-held view that long-range quantum coherence between molecules cannot be sustained in complex biological systems, even at low temperatures.

This is overstating the case. I don't think anybody ever said that electron and energy transfer couldn't exist in a quantum superposition, even at room temperature. (they provide no reference, either) We know for a fact that they do in many systems. I'd say it's a an expected, although not necessarily common, occurrence.

I wouldn't ever attempt to view electron transfer between molecules or within macromolecules as a classical process (nor do I see how the Feynman paper they cite supports this). In short; they're portraying their discovery (while interesting) as more unexpected than it actually is.

Quantum coherences in biological systems most certainly do exist; but not at chemical timescales. (picoseconds, not femtoseconds), and most certainly not at biological timescales (microseconds). It does not mean that chemically and physically implausible theories such as molecules existing in a structural superposition are any more plausible.

Вот что пишет противник моей теории.

Правильно пишет.

Ныкто мэне нэ любыть, ныкто не обожает, Пиду я на болото, наимся червячкив.

Не менее жесткие требования предъявляются к экспериментальным фактам. Они должны быть точны и воспроизводимы, и если факт по настоящему нов и противоречит устоявшимся положениям науки, то он нуждается в особенно тщательной проверке.

А пока нет ни одного подтверждения Волнового генома, вся ваша теория не более чем запись на заборе...

Многочисленные факты-публикации есть, в т.ч. независимые. Приводил.

Вот что пишет противник моей теории на другом ( весьма известном в научном мире ) форуме в поддерживаемой мною эпизодически теме:


Okay, well I happen to do quantum chemical studies of biochemical systems. So I'm a quantum biochemist, but I'm loathe to use that term precisely because there's so much nonsense (ranging from pure nonsense to pseudoscience to bad science to real science) going on under that moniker, and most of which is present in this tread as well.

E.g. Quantum Evolution is nonsense IMO. I'm very skeptical that Bieberich's model and experiment are accurate enough to measure what he thinks he's measuring. I don't believe it. On the other hand, Weitao Yang (who I've met) is a giant within quantum chemistry and certainly credible (although his research is on the development of linear-scaling DFT methods, which are applicable to large molecules, not DNA per se).

The question Is QM significant to biochemistry? is difficult to answer because it's ill-defined.
All of chemistry is fundamentally based on quantum mechanics. Chemical bonding is a quantum-mechanical phenomenon. So in that sense, QM is definitely significant.
However, if you're wondering whether QM has some 'special' significance to biochemistry, as opposed to all other chemistry, then my answer is a strong no. Biochemistry does not differ in any significant way from other chemical systems, it follows the same rules.

For lack of a better word, the worst of the 'quantum-biochemistry' stuff (i.e. pseudoscience/new-age nonsense) is 'neo-vitalist'. I.e. trying to make the claim that biological molecules are somehow fundamentally different from other ones, due to some vague/unlikely/incorrect quantum-mechanical mechanism. The best of it is legitimate research, but shouldn't be interpreted in any way as support for the former.

Now to be specific, quantum mechanics is vital to understanding:
- Reactions
- Chemical bonding
- Electronic structure
- Absorption and emission of light/radiation
- Electron and energy transfer kinetics (i.e. speeds)

So when you're talking about the absorption of light, or the transfer of electrons or energy, it is obviously a quantum-mechanical process. There is simply no classical theory of this whatsoever. And in the case of energy and electron transfer kinetics, this is even outside the realm of traditional chemistry, as these things could not be studied either theoretically or experimentally until quite recently.

But this is the same for the rest of chemistry as well.

Which is why I take issue with this particular statement (emphasized above):

This contrasts with the long-held view that long-range quantum coherence between molecules cannot be sustained in complex biological systems, even at low temperatures.

This is overstating the case. I don't think anybody ever said that electron and energy transfer couldn't exist in a quantum superposition, even at room temperature. (they provide no reference, either) We know for a fact that they do in many systems. I'd say it's a an expected, although not necessarily common, occurrence.

I wouldn't ever attempt to view electron transfer between molecules or within macromolecules as a classical process (nor do I see how the Feynman paper they cite supports this). In short; they're portraying their discovery (while interesting) as more unexpected than it actually is.

Quantum coherences in biological systems most certainly do exist; but not at chemical timescales. (picoseconds, not femtoseconds), and most certainly not at biological timescales (microseconds). It does not mean that chemically and physically implausible theories such as molecules existing in a structural superposition are any more plausible.

Вам абсолютно правильно человек ответил. Мне вообще не понятен смысл вышего гуляния по форумам с этой одной и той же навязчивой идеей. за это время уже десяток других идей могли бы проработать. Неужели Вы, взрослый человек, планирующий заниматься наукой, не в состоянии сами внимательно прочитать и осмыслить хотя бы тот объем литературы который Вы откопали. Неужели физической интуиции и здравого смысла недостаточно для того чтобы самому уметь отбраковывать зерна от плевел, хотя бы даже понять чем уровень статей Хамерова отличается от ППГ?

Игорь, собери побольше слюны (научной) и ... по адресу. Впрочем, бисер перед.... метать?

Вам абсолютно правильно человек ответил

Quasi-quantum phenomena: the key to understanding homeopathy

Marcin Molski

On the basis of the first- and second-order Gompertzian kinetics it has been proved that the crystallization and its reciprocal process of dissolution belong to the class of quasi-quantum non-local coherent phenomena. Hence, there exists a direct link to homeopathy: molecules of the remedy prepared in the process of dilution of the active substance are non-locally interconnected at-a-distance. The results obtained provide strong arguments justifying formulated ad hoc macroscopic versions of quantum non-locality, entanglement and coherence employed in interpretation of the homeopathic remedies activity and effectiveness. In particular they are consistent with the predictions of the weak quantum theory developed by Atmanspacher and coworkers.

Keywords: Gompertzian systems; Zwietering–Gompertz function; Quantum coherence; Non-locality; Entanglement; Crystallization and dissolution; Homeopathy

Polarimetry group theory analysis in biological tissue phantoms by Mueller coherency matrix

Flix Fanjul-Vleza, No Ortega-Quijanoa and Jos Luis Arce-Diego

The characterization of biological tissues by optical techniques provides several advantages over other techniques. Optical techniques enable to perform high resolution and contrast imaging, in a non-invasive way and with no-contact. Biological tissues are turbid media that strongly scatter light. The ultrastructure of some tissues makes them present a certain degree of anisotropy. Both scattering and anisotropy affect light polarization. Some pathologies alter these characteristics of the tissue. As a consequence polarized light can be used to extract additional information and achieve a better diagnosis.

In this work, Group Theory is applied to analyse the polarization behavior of several samples. Firstly, the Mueller matrix for each sample is measured. Then, the Mueller Coherency matrix is obtained by means of the SU(4)–O + (6) homomorphism. Finally, the target decomposition theorem is applied by analyzing the eigenvalues and eigenvectors, and subsequently the different polarimetric effects are separated. In this way, the contrast of tissue imaging can be increased. This analysis is applied to biological tissue phantoms, which consisted on glucose suspensions of polystyrene spheres with different scatterer concentrations. Their behaviour can be modeled by means of single or multiple scattering depending on the concentration, either in the Rayleigh or Mie regimes. The same procedure could be used in a wide range of applications, like the study of cancerous cells that grow without control in cell cultures, or erythrocytes monitoring in anemia. The technique also has a great potential to be applied in Polarization Sensitive Optical Coherence Tomography

Keywords: Tissue polarimetry; Group theory; Mueller coherency matrix; Multiple scattering; Contrast increase

Так ить ён еще и статью в журнале Nature раскритиковал. Крутой надо полагать мужик раз такое может себе позволить. Может и в самом то деле мне ему поверить ?