Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

New Dna Discovery,what Do You Think

  1. Oct 24, 2004 #1
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 24, 2004 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    It reads like a New Age religious tract.

    It says: "They found that the alkalines of our DNA follow a regular grammar and do have set rules just like our languages..." I have never heard the term 'alkalines' used in that way. Maybe they got the wrong word?
  4. Oct 24, 2004 #3


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Is this a joke?

    Materials that are only published in book should always be regarded as doubtful since it is usually not peer-reviewed. Also they give verey little explanation about their method and all this sounds more blow-out of proportion discovery or crappotery
  5. Oct 24, 2004 #4
    Absolutely hilarious :rofl:
  6. Nov 7, 2004 #5
    can anyone elaborate on why this seems to be b.s please, vague answers dont really help anyone.
  7. Nov 7, 2004 #6


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    It uses the word proof an awful lot for something that seems to provide none...
    Do you have any records from the actual 'research' that took place? There seem to be a lot of assumptions and guesses backed up by no evidence of facts.
  8. Nov 9, 2004 #7
    im not taking sides here. im just saying that no one really said anything about why this is possible, but just replied with smiles and there is a website they have and i guess you could wait for there book to be translated to english.
  9. Nov 19, 2004 #8
    The grammar and rules business is just another name for the old triplet code. Maybe they were trying to write alkines which could be just the base pairs.
    Otherwise the thing looks pretty hokey.
  10. Nov 20, 2004 #9
    well i would like to read the book when it gets translated but couldnt there be something within our genes that would create quantum wormholes.
  11. Nov 24, 2004 #10


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    jimmy, I don't know if that site was a bad layman's explanation of a research study, or is supposed to be the report itself, but it's pretty bad. There are just giant leaps in logic with no support for any of the claims provided.
  12. Nov 26, 2004 #11
    Complete gobble-dooky and nonsensical content - as a matter of fact it is. :grumpy:
    Take a look at some of these article's statements which are completely cranky:

    Apparently, the author of this article is merely stating known physics terms and juggling them without any empirical basis, just to make it seem 'scientific'. As far as I know, gravity is a fundamental force, whereas electricity is a flow of elcetrons. It is impossible for gravity to convert into electricity.

    If DNA is a superconductor which operate at body temperature, any metal near us would be repelled by a immense force.

    Superconductor work in a different way from DNA, so such a comparison cannot be made. Superconductors work with electric currents, whereas DNA works with enzymes.

    There are still plenty of fiction in this article which i won't bother to state. :zzz:
  13. Nov 28, 2004 #12
    This article is making statements about Gravity as if they know what and how exactly gravity works. Physicist have long sence concluded that there are 4 fundamental forces which wake up our known universe, Gravity,Electromagnitism, and strong and weak nuclear forces. (with proof)
    Now I have never read any article until now that in a roundabout way states that there is a force Electrogravity :rolleyes: or "gravity converting into electricity". I say HOGWASH!
  14. Nov 29, 2004 #13
    thanks but let me just through a few more things out there

    Superconductivity in DNA
    It insulates, it conducts, it superconducts. This molecule does it all! Dateline: February 23, 2001
    Experiments have demonstrated that DNA exhibits rare superconducting properties similar to those of carbon nanotubes (Kasumov et. al., 2001). By depositing long DNA molecules across a 500nm gap between special electrodes, scientists were able to apply voltages to the quantum wires and measure their conductivity at various temperatures. While most molecular wires become insulating at low temperatures,the DNA exhibited an increased conductance. Superconductivity refers to a complete loss of electrical resistance, and DNA is normally not a superconductor. However, by connecting it to superconducting electrodes the scientists were able to induce superconducting effects when the tem-perature was lowered to 1 Kelvin and below, hence the term "proximity-induced superconductivity."Charge transport measurements were also carried out at room temperature, both in and out of solution.In order to confirm that the electricity was indeed flowing through the DNA, the scientists added DNAdegrading enzymes to the solution, after which the resistance increased by orders of magnitude. At roomtemperature, the conductance seemed unaffected by addition of a biological buffer solution to the driedsample. This is good news for nanoengineers who might want to build solid-state nanoelectronicdevices with DNA.
    Reference: A. Yu. Kasumov, M. Kociak, S. Gueron, B. Reulet, V. T. Volkov, D. V, Klinov, and H. Bouchia, "Proximity-InducedSuperconductivity in DNA"(2001) Science 291, 280

    Superconductivity: it's in the genes
    12 January 2001

    In the quest for ever-smaller electronic devices, scientists have long dreamt of building circuits up atom by atom. But finding molecules capable of conducting electric current has not been easy. Now, Alik Kasumov of the Laboratoire de Physique des Solides in France and co-workers have shown that DNA molecules act as ohmic conductors above 1 K and that below this temperature they can superconduct (A Y Kasumov et al 2001 Science 291 280).

    Following on from the discovery that carbon nanotubes can act as electrical wires, Kasumov showed two years ago that these rolled up sheets of graphite atoms lose their resistance when connected to superconductors. Now Kasumov has shown that this is also true for DNA by connecting double-stranded DNA molecules to rhenium and carbon superconducting electrodes 0.5 µm apart. By cooling the electrodes to below their superconducting transition temperatures, the researchers observed so-called 'proximity induced' superconductivity in the DNA.

    Evidence for electrical conductivity in DNA molecules has been inconclusive until now. Optical experiments have shown that a transfer of charge may be possible in such molecules. But the message from transport measurements has been mixed: some have indicated that DNA could be a conductor while others suggested that DNA is an insulator. Kasumov and colleagues have found that above 1 K, the resistance per molecule is less than 100 kilo-ohm, a figure that varies weakly with temperature and is an order of magnitude lower than previous measurements. Even at very low temperatures, the researchers found that DNA molecules can conduct ohmically over distances of a few hundred nanometres.

    However, the physical mechanism responsible for conduction in DNA remains unclear and it is possible that the contacts act as strong dopants of electrons or holes. The researchers add that conductivity measurements could in turn help biologists to look for particular sequences of base pairs within DNA molecules

  15. Dec 2, 2004 #14


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    They forgot to mention that wormholes are hypothetical, so if a mere chemical (DNA) can produce wormholes, the practical study of quantum gravity just got a whole lot easier! Essentially, we could forget about building the LHC, just do some chemistry in a lab, with DNA (this is somewhat of an exaggeration).

    The worst part of the nonsense in the page you gave us a link to jimmy1200 is the huge amount of 'unexplaining' that would have to be done if some of these guys' more outrageous ideas were to be validated, such as a re-write of much of 20th century physics, for example.

    As to whether some DNA molecules can become superconducting at low temperatures, I personally have my doubts, but even if they do, so what? DNA inside you isn't at 1K (or 1mK), so it's not doing whatever superconducting magic the authors think it could.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook