It may not seem something to get bent out of shape over, but there's a scientific controversy that's been brewing over whether or not bacteria generate radio waves. Now a team at Northeastern University thinks they've figured out the mechanism that bacteria might use to manufacture radio signals.
The Northeastern study demonstrates how bacterial DNA could be the source of radio signals. The DNA in bacteria often forms a loop, a free electrons moving around that loop could take certain energy levels. The transition frequencies between those energy levels, when modeled, show signals broadcasting at 0.5, 1, and 1.5 kilohertz.
These frequencies correspond to the published frequencies measured in an E. coli colony back in 2009. However, that study has come under a lot of fire, with some researchers dismissing the work outright. So this new finding should throw fuel on a smoldering debate about bacteria and what goes on at the microbial level.
But, as Tech Review correctly points out, one of the main criticisms for that earlier paper on E. coli and radio waves was that there was no way bacteria could generate radio waves. Whether or not they do is still up in the air, but this new study from Northeastern shows a mechanism by which it could be done.
If you have a dog in this fight, you can get the whole paper over at arXiv.
:| No comment
*D Ace Lee*
I wonder if nano-tube radio is used.
Sure, all the best and most groundbreaking research is peppered with spelling and grammatical errors and published in a journal with no peer-review. Uhuh.
The paper starts by saying that because photosynthesis is a response to photons from the sun, so chemical reactions can be induced at a distance due to the propagation of electromagnetic signals during intermediate reaction stages.
The authors show no sign of understanding the difference between electromagnetic radiation and signals encoded in electromagnetic radiation, or of the fact that photosynthesis is possible only because the sun, while far away, is very big and very hot so is emitting high energy photons at an enormous rate.
The authors case is not helped by uncritically citing discredited work by Benveniste and as yet unreproduced work by Montaigner, a Benveniste believer who also apparently believes that porridge can cure AIDS, or by the almost wilful confusion of concepts such as energy and signal.
In the end the obvious fact is that the reason this was not published in a reputable journal, is that no reputable journal would touch it. Whatever nuggets of fact it might contain are so interwoven with pseudoscience and outright nonsense that nothing useful can be drawn from it.
For more on the revolutionary implications of Montagnier's work, see this video, "What is Life? A Non-Particle View": www.larouchepac.com/node/17802