Experimental evidence supportive of the quantum DNA model | Hacker News Reader

Experimental evidence supportive of the quantum DNA model

dc.uthsc.edu

11 pointsnahuel0x12 comments

This is straight-up psuedoscience written to look like it's real science. The editors of the "journal" that accepted it should be embarassed.

It looks like these are conference proceedings - not a journal article, it's basically front matter for a presentation at a conference and isn't necessarily peer reviewed.

Things must have changed a bit, back in my day SPIE was for optics, but I guess I only went to those kinds of parties, there may have been some quantum DNA people doing some stuff :)

GPT-3? :)

"The DNA molecule can be modeled as a quantum logic processor in which electron spin qubits are held coherently in each nucleotide in a logically and thermodynamically reversible enantiomeric symmetry, and can be coherently conducted along the pi-stacking interactions of aromatic nucleotide bases, while simultaneously being spin-filtered via the helicity of the DNA molecule. Entangled electron pairs can be separated by that spin-filtering, held coherently at biological temperatures in the topologically insulated nucleotide quantum gates, and incorporated into separate DNA strands during DNA replication."

I think scientific papers in any field could look like GPT-3 to a lot of people, given all the jargon, yet clean structure and flow.

Never attribute to GPT-3 that which can be attributed to a scientist churning out papers to get funding.

Then again, if this turns out to be GPT-3, I don't want to have to swallow that pill :)

As an illustration, see http://snarxiv.org/vs-arxiv/

This certainly bends the needle on my bamboozle bullshit meter.

They sure crammed a maximum amount of specialized words in there. Words that a majority of people will not understand.

After reading just this excerpt, I instantly lost the nerve and patience to read the actual article.

If the purpose of (written) communication is to transfers ideas, then this convoluted word salad certainly miserably failed at it. But, I get the impression that the intention here is exactly the opposite, to convey absolutely nothing while pretending to be something complex and hard to understand.

99 out of a 100 (if not more), that kind of pattern indicates a intentional scam, of which there are plenty on fringes of science communities.

Not being able to follow a science paper as the result of inadequate knowledge, regarding concepts and/or jargon, is one thing. Creating bullshit sentences like these is very much another.

Wow, no kidding, that's the abstract!

It doesn't talk about the experiment or the findings, it only postulates some reaction that they expect to be happening.

There is certainly not enough evidence on the paper to decide on that complex model. I'm not sure there is any evidence on the paper at all, since it's noisy and hard to read - but certainly not enough for that.

Summary of the paper: They grew some neuronal rat cells, split the cell colony in two parts, shone a laser on one part and measured an effect on the second part, even if they were separated. The effect persisted when the first half was anesthetized. The proposed explanation is that the DNA of the first half is somehow entangled with the DNA of the second half.

Either the authors win a Nobel prize, or this paper is bs. My intuition leans towards the latter.

They have culture A and culture B, but they don't have culture C and culture D, acting as negative controls. Since they don't have negative controls, their experiments don't really show anything...

Came here to say this. Experimental design is flawed. The laser electronics are probably interfering with the electrodes.

Uhhhh... I stopped at the abstract. It's describing an insane scientific concept with literally no preexisting support. Even if the experimental design wasn't flawed, the results wouldn't convince anybody that what the author claims is true.

This really doesn't look like a real biology paper, and the content is essentially pseudoscience. I don't know enough physics to reliably distinguish gibberish from real physics, but I know biology and that part certainly doesn't make any sense.

One very telling aspect is the lack of a proper experimental section, and the extremely bad figures. In a real paper you wouldn't find figures without axis labels. You can hardly see anything in the figures in this paper.

Not repeating the experiment several times on different cell culture batches is also not a good sign. As is the lack of control experiments.

The whole thing doesn't make any sense, it's an extremely far-fetched hypothesis anyway. And the paper takes enormous leaps based on extremely flimsy data.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com