Seeking biomagnetism resources

[tom baxter]

TL;DR Summary

interested in information about death and qualitative/quantitative observations of biomagnetic fields

Hi all, I am new here. I am unsure if this is the appropriate location for this thread, so please forgive me if I have misplaced it.

I am specifically interested in information regarding any qualitative or quantitative observations of biomagnetic fields upon death. It is my supposition that biomagnetic fields are only qualitatively changed upon death, as it is my understanding that there is no quantitative difference between that which possesses magnetic field coherency and that which does not. For that matter, I am also not understanding the physical ways in which a magnetic field that is polarized differs from a magnetic field that is not polarized. Any information on that would be helpful to me as well. Thank you

 

[jim mcnamara]

Youtube seminar by a primary researcher, MIT faculty, in the field:
https://engineering.dartmouth.edu/events/biomagnetism-magnetic-fields-produced-by-the-human-body
<edited to remove double negative >
Note: your idea about death is not something that I can not see in the professional literature. So, we generally refrain from discussion on subjects like that. Unknowns. PF is meant only for discourse on known, tested Science, not developing new hypotheses. Note that I used the word "idea", by that I mean personal speculation. Obviously we can not allow that here. It is perfectly okay other places, just not here in the science forums. Because people make up stuff that is untestable to start with, and is opinion. Not tested fact.

 

[berkeman]

I am also not understanding the physical ways in which a magnetic field that is polarized differs from a magnetic field that is not polarized. Any information on that would be helpful to me as well.

If you could post some links to the mainstream articles that you have been reading using the term "polarized" magnetic field, that would help us try to address that question for you.

Lacking that, "polarization" of electric or magnetic fields usually would refer to a directional nature for the fields. Like, the magnetic field between the closely spaced poles of a permanent magnet or the gap in a magnetic core will be pretty much directed in a single direction. Similarly for the electric field between the plates of a parallel plate capacitor.

The more general case of polarization would be for an electromagnetic (EM) wave like light, propagating in some direction. If it is polarized light, that would mean that the oscillating Electric Field (E-field) is oriented along one axis, and the associated oscillating Magnetic Field (B-field) is oriented at a right angle to the E-field.

Simple magnetic field in the air gap of a core:

https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/3-s2.0-B9780128044483000116-f11-01-9780128044483.jpg

Oscillating E- and B- fields as part of a propagating EM wave:

https://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/wavebasics/basicwavesjavafigure1.jpg

 

[BillTre]

Polarized electromagnetic waves can be detected by specific photoreceptors as part of a visual system, for example.
Magnetic fields can be detected by possibly a variety of methods. At least some seem to involve magnetite which may tug on some cellular component in order to make a neural signal.
There are several electrical currents in biological systems at particular times. Things like Ca⁺⁺ currents in fertilized cells, currents going out wounds.
These kinds of currents may interact with a magnetic field and produce some biological effect, but I'm guessing they would not have much signalling involvement.

 

[tom baxter]

First and foremost, I would like to thank everyone for your time and thoughtful responses to my questions. This is my first time ever posting on any physics forum, and I appreciate the patience, as I find it likely that my terminology and structure of my question probably exposes the fact that I do not have a similar education background to you all who are responding to my post. The responses have been much appreciated and thought stimulating, which is really my primary purpose in posting.

I honestly have already gotten much of my desired outcome from the responses, and feel as if I understand most of the provided responses as well as some of the vagueness of my initial post more clearly now.

As to the note proposed by Jim Mcnamara, I wonder if I am misunderstanding you, or if the ambiguity of my post is my issue. I am specifically asking for observational data and scientific analyses of the proposed scenario ie changes to the biomagnetic field upon death. It did cross my mind that the data does not exist in literature, but it did not cross my mind that it is not testable. I am not seeking to develop a new hypothesis, and if this is not testable then I do not understand why that is the case. In my understanding, the biomagnetic field is an observable phenomenon, and I am simply interested in how it changes upon death. Are you suggesting that this is not observable, and if so could you explain why?

 

[jim mcnamara]

When a complex organism dies, there are diverse massive, and often quick biological processes that kick off.

Apoptosis is one - cells exposed to certain stimuli run a DNA "program" that kills that cell outright. It can create a cascade effect on neighboring cells as well. The actual DNA "program" is common to most cells in a given organism.

So we assume the cell death program occurring over a lot of cells can change the magnetic field. So can we test? But you need to test the widely varying environmental reaction of the dying individuals.

Which cells die off like this varies enormously per what the stimulus is. An example is deer mice and predation. Death is not the same for each mouse and the reactions of individual mice vary a lot.

Oversimplified version:

When caught by a predator some individuals into go into shock and die with nearly instantaneous massive cell death. Other fiesty mice can actually inflict damage on a predator. Their fight or flight response is to fight. So, to give your hypothesis merit (verifable testing) you would have to find a way to test every possible modus mortem.

Biologists often resort to cell cultures for these kinds of problems.

Because change of context in biological systems is a nasty issue.

If you decide to test this on deer mouse cell cultures (in vitro) there would no reasonable way to extrapolate from your data --> to cell tissues in vitro, from that ---> to organ systems in vivo, from that ---> to individuals.
So you are back to having to test individuals.

What I am describing is a problem for all biologists:

Without getting too technical:
What I described poorly is why Alzheimer dementia studies on mouse cell tissues seldom produce viable treatments on humans. What is true and even reasonably testable in one context is seldom true everywhere.

And your response indicates that you think it can be made testable. I gave you a counterpoint, which could easily be wrong. It does not matter at all for this forum.

Your response is why we don't discuss this kind of undone science. You can keep asserting it is testable until the Sun burns out, without spending time and money to find out. You do understand this is the idea of debunking and why we cannot do that here.

It is a lose-lose proposition.

I've gone out of bounds on this post but you seem reasonable.

Bottom line:

You are going to have to contact actual researchers in the field directly. Do not assert that your ideas are correct. Ask if they are testable and/or if anyone is looking at some new research program related to that. Look around for seminars you could attend. Researchers at seminars are very approachable.

 

[tom baxter]

When a complex organism dies, there are diverse massive, and often quick biological processes that kick off.

Apoptosis is one - cells exposed to certain stimuli run a DNA "program" that kills that cell outright. It can create a cascade effect on neighboring cells as well. The actual DNA "program" is common to most cells in a given organism.

So we assume the cell death program occurring over a lot of cells can change the magnetic field. So can we test? But you need to test the widely varying environmental reaction of the dying individuals.

Which cells die off like this varies enormously per what the stimulus is. An example is deer mice and predation. Death is not the same for each mouse and the reactions of individual mice vary a lot.

Oversimplified version:

When caught by a predator some individuals into go into shock and die with nearly instantaneous massive cell death. Other fiesty mice can actually inflict damage on a predator. Their fight or flight response is to fight. So, to give your hypothesis merit (verifable testing) you would have to find a way to test every possible modus mortem.

Biologists often resort to cell cultures for these kinds of problems.

Because change of context in biological systems is a nasty issue.

If you decide to test this on deer mouse cell cultures (in vitro) there would no reasonable way to extrapolate from your data --> to cell tissues in vitro, from that ---> to organ systems in vivo, from that ---> to individuals.
So you are back to having to test individuals.

What I am describing is a problem for all biologists:

Without getting too technical:
What I described poorly is why Alzheimer dementia studies on mouse cell tissues seldom produce viable treatments on humans. What is true and even reasonably testable in one context is seldom true everywhere.

And your response indicates that you think it can be made testable. I gave you a counterpoint, which could easily be wrong. It does not matter at all for this forum.

Your response is why we don't discuss this kind of undone science. You can keep asserting it is testable until the Sun burns out, without spending time and money to find out. You do understand this is the idea of debunking and why we cannot do that here.

It is a lose-lose proposition.

I've gone out of bounds on this post but you seem reasonable.

Bottom line:

You are going to have to contact actual researchers in the field directly. Do not assert that your ideas are correct. Ask if they are testable and/or if anyone is looking at some new research program related to that. Look around for seminars you could attend. Researchers at seminars are very approachable.

Wow, thank you very much again for your time. I apologize for my mistake, and you have explained it to me well. I will spend some time reading other threads for while before I jump to asking more questions and making my own threads. I am learning the ettiquite and really appreciate the patience and the thorough explanation. I get the sense very quickly here that there is a lot of valuable contributors and vast amounts of knowledge and information to be gained from this forum.