2 questions: illusory "force" between hands, and "wave genetics"

[nomadreid]

TL;DR Summary

1) some people claim to feel a "force" pushing or pulling their hands together/apart when holding them parallel to one another. Is this purely psychological, or is there some muscular reaction involved. (2) (Unsure if appropriate) does "wave genetics" have a proper foundation?

The first question concerns reports by people who claim that there is a "force" pulling or pushing their hands when they hold their hands in front of them, close to each other, and parallel to one another, or while slowly moving their hands apart. Obviously there are no significant forces (electromagnetic or otherwise) between them, so this is an illusion. The two explanations I can think of are: (1) they read somewhere about the "force" and are convincing themselves that it is there, or (2) there is a reaction by the muscles or nerves to this position, causing the reaction and hence the illusion. Is there any basis to know whether either of these explanations is correct, or perhaps some other?

The second question is more iffy, and I would understand if a mentor asked me to remove it or place it in "Discussion", or if I got only answers to the first question.

I was given some works by a Dr. Peter Garaiev who writes about a field called "Wave Genetics"; in Internet I also found it under the title of "Linguistic Wave Genetics", although I could find no reference to language in that article. The closest I got to it in Wikipedia was "Quantum Biology". (I do not post the links to Dr. Garaiev's sites, because they are in Russian.)

On one side, I tend to be skeptical due to:
(a) the writer's style (in the first sections of the articles -- my Russian is not strong) ,
(b) the limited appearance on the Internet referring to this, and
(c) being used to atomic physics being misinterpreted ( I am neither a physicist nor a biologist, but my background in physics is stronger than in biology) .

But on the other side, as I just said, I am not a biologist, so perhaps there is something to at least some of his ideas even if they are phrased differently, and I just don't know where to look. So, the question becomes a bit broad (and hence perhaps not suitable for this rubric), whether anyone has heard of or knows anything about a field dealing with the regeneration of tissue using those sections of the DNA code previously labeled "junk DNA".

 

[docnet]

Summary:: 1) some people claim to feel a "force" pushing or pulling their hands together/apart when holding them parallel to one another. Is this purely psychological, or is there some muscular reaction involved. (2) (Unsure if appropriate) does "wave genetics" have a proper foundation?

I think I read that too. Was it in dick Cheney's latest book?

Jokes aside, if the first question could be re-worded as "what causes a person to think they feel an external force pushing their hands together when there is no such force?" I think the explanation would be a neurological explanation having to do with our sensory perception.

Regarding the idea of "linguistic wave genetics" or quantum biology, here is what I found on the internet.

"The concept was first developed and researched in early XX century by AG Gurvich. (LVG ) had opposed conventional (classic) genetics and molecular biology based on a principal called "locality" - locally spread and transmitted genetic information. According to (LWG) a genetic information acts not only "locally" but also at a distance. Our genome is able to generate, transmit and receive information waves generated by our cells at quantum genetic level. The information is coded in a form of "quantum holograms" or "phantoms". The (LWG) concept considers genetic apparatus (genome) as a bio-computer capable of making decisions, managing and programming bio-systems."

Link to journal article: https://clinical-epigenetics.imedpu...trices-qim-used-for-programming.php?aid=19804

We are immediately skeptical when the words quantum and biology appear next to each other in a sentence. To my knowledge, there is absolutely no evidence of quantum mechanics being relevant at the relatively large scales where molecular biology occurs. This article should not be taken seriously unless such evidence emerges.

The evidence in this and related articles seem shaky and sketchy, and the corresponding analysis even more so.

 

[nomadreid]

Thank you very much, docnet. I'll wait another few centuries before the full neurological explanation for the hands illusion (appropriately re-formulated by you) can be known ; in the meantime, your answer about genetics confirmed my suspicions, and the link was very helpful. Excellent answer.

 

[Fervent Freyja]

We are immediately skeptical when the words quantum and biology appear next to each other in a sentence. To my knowledge, there is absolutely no evidence of quantum mechanics being relevant at the relatively large scales where molecular biology occurs. This article should not be taken seriously unless such evidence emerges.

Totally wrong. We’ve seen that some enzymes and proteins display phenomenon like quantum tunneling. Proton tunneling and other quantum effects in biological processes are under heavy study (and have been for a couple of years) all around the world and are further expected to be vital parts of processes we cannot fully explain yet.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-11212-x
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2018.0640
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5454345/

I could link thousands of more studies where quantum effects have been studied in biological processes. I really wish people wouldn’t jump on here declaring a topic is skeptical without looking it up because mentors/admin will believe that person if they don’t already know.

 

[docnet]

Totally wrong. We’ve seen that some enzymes and proteins display phenomenon like quantum tunneling. Proton tunneling and other quantum effects in biological processes are under heavy study (and have been for a couple of years) all around the world and are further expected to be vital parts of processes we cannot fully explain yet.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-11212-x
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2018.0640
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5454345/

I could link thousands of more studies where quantum effects have been studied in biological processes. I really wish people wouldn’t jump on here declaring a topic is skeptical without looking it up because mentors/admin will believe that person if they don’t already know.

You are totally right. My statement regarding the lack of connection between quantum physics and biology was obviously wrong and there are a plethora of examples in biology to prove it. One clear example of quantum mechanics playing a clear role is the photosynthetic system that converts light energy to chemical energy via quantum excitations. Another clear example is the bird magneto reception mentioned in the article you cited, which, in principle, seems to function based on quantum mechanics.

Anytime a chemical reaction happens between molecules, for example, a covalent bond gets cleaved, a molecule gets oxidized by another, and etc, we could refer to the term "quantum". The studies of chemical reactions have been performed by chemists for several decades and have provided important understandings of biological molecules. But these studies don't delve into key quantum mechanical concepts such as entanglement, the uncertainty principle, superposition, etc.

To be honest, the first two articles you linked don't seem to go further than a cursory description of quantum mechanics for the layperson and its general relationship to biology. The third article, at a glance, seems to be legitimate, interesting, and has the real mathematics of quantum mechanics. The single author seems to have a background in biophysics. However, the link between the rate equations and the biological processes they intend to describe seems to be just theoretical.

For example, the third article tests the the hypothesis that C-H vibrations are the sole signatures in the "smell spectra" by examining an IR spectra of Muscone, an odorant molecule. It proposes the vibrational modes of the bonds in the receptor are what turn on the receptors for the olfaction neurons, which does not seem plausible. We notice this article is written by a single author, who may cherry pick "evidence" from a hodgepodge of NMR spectroscopy experiments, IR experiments, and other studies to form a forced narrative.

I guess we don't see a reason to force the connection between quantum mechanics and biology at this point in time, with so little known about classical descriptions of biology. We are just starting to understand the mechanisms of protein allostery by measuring perturbations of solid state NMR spectra, where we identify intra-molecular H-bonding networks and "entropy transfer" as mediators of allostery. These complex questions don't require quantum descriptions because they solve solve systems that are relatively large and heavy compared to the truly tiny systems whose quantum states are delicate. Regardless, I think the group of studies regarding "wave genetics" and "quantum holograms" are totally baseless and nonsensical. I am looking forward to being proved wrong.

 

[Fervent Freyja]

I agree, the OP isn’t making sense.

Quantum biology is a newer interdiscipline (but valid). I’ve noticed threads on it being locked in the past and thought that I needed to say something this time! It’s fascinating!

 

[nomadreid]

I agree, the OP isn’t making sense

I presume you mean that the sources that I put into question are not making any sense. I did not assert anything in my post, I merely posed question about a questionable source; the question was not rhetorical. The answers given by docnet appear to satisfactorily answer my question. The sources I put into question may not make any sense, but I do not see why my question does not make any sense.

While I am here, I wish to pose another question on this subject, but this time a more concrete and elementary question about a more reliable source, given my lack of background knowledge in this field. In https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4547696/, in the early section "Transient WC-like dG•dT tautomer mispair", it is stated "dG•dT mispairs generally adopt a distinct ‘wobble’ (WB) geometry ... since a WC geometry results in a steric clash between imino protons..." Is this "wobble geometry" ultimately a quantum mechanical phenomenon? If not, could someone express in lay terms what this is due to?

 

[Ygggdrasil]

I presume you mean that the sources that I put into question are not making any sense. I did not assert anything in my post, I merely posed question about a questionable source; the question was not rhetorical. The answers given by docnet appear to satisfactorily answer my question. The sources I put into question may not make any sense, but I do not see why my question does not make any sense.

While I am here, I wish to pose another question on this subject, but this time a more concrete and elementary question about a more reliable source, given my lack of background knowledge in this field. In https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4547696/, in the early section "Transient WC-like dG•dT tautomer mispair", it is stated "dG•dT mispairs generally adopt a distinct ‘wobble’ (WB) geometry ... since a WC geometry results in a steric clash between imino protons..." Is this "wobble geometry" ultimately a quantum mechanical phenomenon? If not, could someone express in lay terms what this is due to?

A wobble geometry is basically a non-canonical base pairing between bases. It is explained by the same types of intermolecular forces that explain canonical Watson-Crick base pairing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wobble_base_pair

 

[nomadreid]

Thank you very much, Ygggdrasil