Collective Memory Discovered in Bacteria
sciencedaily.com
sciencedaily.com
So basically you thwack all the cells with something that pushes their lifecycles towards a similar schedule, and then later-on they tend to all still be on the same cycle?
Isn't that like saying two pendulums in the same house have a "collective memory" of an earthquake?
Yeah, that much is pretty well understood. http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/jou...
> Isn't that like saying two pendulums in the same house have a "collective memory" of an earthquake?
The important point isn't that there's memory (which seems pretty easy to explain), it's that it's collective. Using your analogy, it would be like finding that two pendulums in the same house have memory of an earthquake, but if there's only one pendulum then there's no memory.
This result might be regulated by quorum sensing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quorum_sensing). Like the pendulums are talking to each other.
Funny enough servers will do that as well. They will self synchronize and exhibit a thundering herd effect. They run the same software, power cuts our, or they get DoSed, maybe they restart, retry at the same schedule and so on.
http://www.nature.com/news/2002/020221/full/news020218-16.ht...
However, all natural sciences are simplified models approximating reality, the only question how much predictive force they can demonstrate. Either way, the article presents a better laid out theory than "it seems so to me".
The idea that we control our DNA through habits is newage bull promulgated by charlatans using the vocabulary of science to sell snake oil and collect speakers' fees.
The disturbing part is, that's how long they live. What would a hypothetical twenty-year-old octopus get up to?
Switching majors, chasing tentacle and hanging in the quad
-or-
Getting their first $1B valuation as cofounder of an octocorn
I'm guessing they reach their maximum intelligence well before they die, and then they plateau, like most other animals. So living 20 years would make it more experienced but not able to apply to MIT.
Well not young but more their life span isn't that long.
3-5 years and they're the longer lived octopus.
Also, how quickly can we implant new memories? I would like a nice ego trip to Mars.
LGM (Little green men): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGM-1
High temperature superconductivity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-temperature_superconducti...
And depending of the details about what you consider an explanation, we can include gravity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton It probably involves a family of alleged particle that nobody had seen, but with a few approximations you will probably get General Relativity and with more approximations Newtonian Gravity. Anyway, why do gravitons interact with quarks?
You yourself are a pile of mostly quarks (and gluons) whose behaviour with respect to the surface of the Earth is extremely well described by General Relativity. There are plenty of large astrophysical objects which are mainly quarks-and-gluons and they follow General Relativity (GR) exactly.
The non-gravitational behaviour of all these objects is (within measurability) exactly described by the Standard Model, and if we divide them up into constituent parts -- right down to subatomic particles -- the description remains accurate. The description of the gravitational behaviour of these objects should also continue as we divide them into ever smaller parts. Quarks feel all four fundamental forces, so they must interact with the respective force carriers.
Gauge bosons are exchanged between elementary particles in a gauge theory (like the Standard Model), and carry the fundamental forces. Gravitons are directly comparable with photons, which mediate the other long range fundamental force; both should be massless because they are long-range. Classical light waves have spin-0 symmetry, and photons are spin-0; classical gravitational gravitational waves have spin-2 symmetry, so a quantization of them must preserve that.
The simplest graviton extension to the Standard Model works very well when gravitational effects are weak, but fails when gravitational effects are strong, largely because gravitons are self-interacting (unlike photons, at least at tree level).
This seen in classical theories: the Maxwell equations are linear; the Einstein Field Equations are not.
Schrödinger's equation is linear; quantum gravitational equations almost certainly will not be.
Weinberg's dimensional power counting of Feynman diagrams works for renormalizing field content described by Schrödinger's equation; that approach doesn't work for the gravitational field content for diagrams with more than one loop of gravitons.
Directly detecting an individual graviton will be difficult; you're interacting with enormous numbers of gravitational waves (even more than the number of light waves you are interacting with), but unlike the photon, the individual effect of each graviton is too weak to detect with anything close to current technology. (see for example http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0601043 )
Finally, we might arrive at another theory of gravity that doesn't have gravitons, although that would be a surprising result.
The last caveat undoes the whole research paper; it's not really memory, but a timing issue. All they did was exploit the synced the cell division cycles: they might have chosen the 2-hour mark (or got really lucky) as that was when the cell-division cycle was most (or somewhat) resilient.
This is similar to saying "batching all network writes to only happen in the first 30 seconds of every minute may make your network more resilient to random 5-second disconnections between data centers, or it make make it more sensitive". This is obviously dependent on which part of the cycle the disconnection happens! Maybe I should write that paper...