The Cur­rent Year is 6265

It’s not the job of this site to get big num­bers in order to get the infor­ma­tion out to the public.

That’s your job!

Are We Com­mu­ni­cat­ing Using Invis­i­ble Light? Bio­pho­tons and DNA.

Inter-​organism com­mu­ni­ca­tion by the mean of light could be another func­tion of the so-​called Junk-​DNA.

As the Human Genome Project (NIH, 2003) ended in 2003, it was found out that only 1% of DNA sequences are trans­lated into pro­teins (20 000 to 25 000 human genes). The remain­ing 99% of the genome has been qual­i­fied as Junk-​DNA. It is in Sep­tem­ber 2012 that sci­en­tists sug­gested that over 80% of the genome serves some bio­chem­i­cal pur­pose, how­ever with­out pro­vid­ing evi­dences (Pen­nisi, 2012). Recently bio­physi­cists demon­strated the vibrat­ing behav­ior of the Junk-​DNA as the major source of ultra-​weak light emis­sion, also called bio­pho­tons. The aim of this arti­cle is to cre­ate a com­mon ground for dis­cus­sion about the mech­a­nism of bio­pho­tons pro­duc­tion by DNA and inter-​organism com­mu­ni­ca­tion by the mean of light.

Already in 1994 biol­o­gists and lin­guists from Har­vard had fairly shown that Junk-​DNA has all the fea­tures of human lan­guage. The nucleotide bases in the junk express all the fea­tures of syn­tax, seman­tic and gram­mar of a lan­guage (Flam, 1994). Recently Russ­ian bio­physi­cists expressed the belief in the vibra­tional behav­ior of the Junk-​DNA. They intro­duced the term of wave genet­ics and demon­strated that liv­ing DNA will react to language-​modulated waves, if the proper fre­quen­cies are being used (Gar­ja­jev, Cri­sis in Life Sci­ence, 2009) (Gar­ja­jev, Fried­man, & Leonava-​Gariaeva, Prin­ci­ples of Lin­guis­tic Wave Genet­ics, 2011). Other sci­en­tists even intro­duced the con­cept of quan­tum bio­holo­gram, pro­mot­ing the idea that the nucleotide sequences in DNA are able to project a holo­graphic image of biostruc­tures (Miller, Miller, & Webb, 2011). Although this might sound like fic­tion, more researchers are look­ing more specif­i­cally at the junk-​DNA, neu­ronal struc­tures and bio­pho­ton emis­sion because they offer much more legit­i­mate expla­na­tions for the expres­sion of con­scious­ness (Grass, Klima, & Kasper, 2004). They found inter­est­ing that most mol­e­cules involved in mood reac­tion (tryp­to­phan, pheny­lala­nine, thy­ro­sine) and hal­lu­ci­na­tion (LSD, psy­locib­ine, harmine) have strong flu­o­res­cence prop­er­ties and there­fore should inter­fere with biophotons.

Weak emis­sion of light from cells in a liv­ing organ­ism were dis­cov­ered by the Russ­ian embry­ol­o­gist Alexan­der Gur­witsh in 1926 (Gur­witsch, 1934), who called them mito­ge­netic rays. Half a cen­tury later, the Ger­man researcher Fritz Albert Popp, a Nobel Prize nom­i­nee in Physics, re-​confirmed their exis­tence and estab­lished the term bio­pho­ton. Popp exper­i­men­tally demon­strated that up to dozend of pho­tons of light are emit­ted every sec­ond from every square cen­time­ter of area — equiv­a­lent to the inten­sity of a can­dle at a dis­tance of about 10 kilo­me­ters (Bischof, 1995). Popp proved that bio­pho­tons emis­sion is not con­fined to ther­mal radi­a­tion or bio­lu­mi­nes­cence. The exis­tence of bio­pho­tons is now largely accepted by the sci­en­tific community.

Image for post

After sev­eral inde­pen­dent stud­ies demon­strated that liv­ing cells do not just radi­ate light, they also absorb light, sci­en­tists are now inves­ti­gat­ing the exis­tence of a new form of com­mu­ni­ca­tion using light. Such a cell to cell com­mu­ni­ca­tion by the mean of light was first noticed by Gur­witsh in 1926 in onion (Gur­witsch, 1934). Later researchers pos­tu­lated that some intra­cel­lu­lar and inter­cel­lu­lar com­mu­ni­ca­tion should occur at the speed of light in order to make the orga­ni­za­tion of liv­ing processes pos­si­ble. Bio­pho­tons could offer that sup­ple­men­tary sig­nal­ing path­way next to elec­tri­cal and chem­i­cal path­ways for intra– and inter­cel­lu­lar com­mu­ni­ca­tion (Popp & Zhang, Mech­a­nism of inter­ac­tion between elec­tro­mag­netic fields and liv­ing organ­isms, 2000; Shen, Mei, & Xu, 1994). We now know that pho­to­sen­si­tive bio­mol­e­cules of cells and neu­rons can absorb bio­pho­tons and trans­fer the absorbed bio­pho­tons energy to nearby bio­mol­e­cules by res­o­nance energy trans­fer, which can induce con­for­ma­tion changes and trig­ger com­plex sig­nal processes in cells and between cells (Sun Y., 2010). Fur­ther evi­dence of dis­tant com­mu­ni­ca­tion between fish eggs in the syn­chro­niza­tion of their devel­op­ment by the mean of bio­pho­tons was recently demon­strated (May­burov, 2011). In the same hori­zon, some researchers even pro­posed that the brain would the ideal place for pho­tonic com­mu­ni­ca­tion to take place. Indeed hol­low micro­tubules with con­stant inner diam­e­ter in the dark of human scalp could per­fectly act as opti­cal fibers for bio­pho­ton trans­mis­sion within brain nerve cells (Grass, Klima, & Kasper, 2004). More sci­en­tists are now argu­ing that the role of bio­pho­tons in the brain mer­its spe­cial atten­tion (Rah­nama, Bokkon, Tuszyn­ski, Cifra, Sar­dar, & V, 2011). They obvi­ously found a sig­nif­i­cant rela­tion­ship between the fluc­tu­a­tion func­tion of micro­tubules due to bio­pho­tons emis­sion and alpha-​EEG. Simul­ta­ne­ously, researchers brought in vitro evi­dence of the exis­tence of spon­ta­neous and vis­i­ble light-​induced ultra­weak pho­ton emis­sion from freshly iso­lated whole eye (Wang C, 2011).

Assum­ing that pho­tonic com­mu­ni­ca­tion really takes place in liv­ing eukary­otes, the role of the DNA is so far unclear. It has been sug­gested that the major source of bio­pho­tons is the DNA. The first sup­port­ing fact is that, cells emit bio­pho­tons even when the cyto­plasm is dam­aged, how­ever when the nuclei is removed, bio­pho­ton emis­sion stops. Another sup­port­ing fact is that, ethid­ium bro­mide destroy­ing the DNA also reduces the emis­sion (Popp, Nagl, Li, Scholz, Wein­gart­ner, & Wolf, 1984; Popp, About the coher­ence of bio­pho­tons, 1998). Actu­ally, red blood cells which have no active chro­ma­tine are the only cells which do not emit bio­pho­tons. The mech­a­nism of bio­pho­ton absorp­tion, stor­age and emis­sion is how­ever not well under­stood. Also the regions of DNA which are respon­si­ble of bio­pho­ton mech­a­nism have not yet been elucidated.


What’s In Your Water?

Scared Yet

What’s Next, Soy­lent Green Farms

Who Dat ?

We have 88 guests and no mem­bers online


World Con­trol

Wise Words