What's New with My Site?
A Proposal For Inferential Orbital Evidence of the DNA Phantom Effect
by Jason M. Brill
In 1981, Peter Gariaev, et. al. demonstrated, under laboratory conditions, their theory surrounding the DNA Phantom Effect.1 This demonstration has never been successfully replicated to the author's knowledge. This calls into question a very notable key to the mysteries of life from the standpoint of Physical Science. A proper replication is hopefully forthcoming, for if Gariaev is correct, further study of the phenomena would have profound effect on modern scientific view, as well as its advancement. In the meantime, this proposal is for the purpose of demonstrating potential orbital evidence to back up Gariaev's claim as far as is possible without replication of the phenomenon itself.
The DNA Phantom Effect, as proposed by P. Gariaev,2 proposes quite a few extraordinary things.
1) That the genetic strands for reproduction project a holographic blueprint.
2) That holographic projection is not merely a figurative way of perceiving it, but should be taken literally.
3) That communication within those strands is not limited to the system itself, but extends to the outside world.
4) That the currently interpreted analogy of textual linguistics in DNA is not merely analogous, but is fractally related to our own communication linguistics.
5) That it provides eminent evidence of Pribram's Holographic Brain model.
6) That these holographic blueprints are provided by solitonic nonlinear superpositioning of standing sound and light waves.
7) That this phenomenon demonstrates quantum nonlocality on a lengthy molecular scale.
Taking this further into the realms of modern quantum field and gauge theories, one can easily see a precise mechanism for reproduction on a cellular and informational level. There's just one catch: it's never been demonstrated since. While this calls every one of these implications into question, the phenomena would have such profound implications well beyond all of these that it simply cannot be ignored. Ranging from mechanisms of life previously misunderstood to the possibility of a solitonic model of quantum phenomena, a further understanding of atomic absorption and emission, a pure integration of chaos theory and modern mainstream scientific understanding, advances in evolutionary and biological theories and this list goes on, it would be a gross error on our parts to simply ignore this evidence due to lack of further demonstration. So, the question is raised, is there any way to gain an inferential evidence of this Phantom Effect? In other words, could we provide experimentally replicatable demonstration of the essences of the underlying theory of Dr. P. Gariaev, thus furthering its potential advancement? The author believes so.
The Fractality of Communicative Noise:
It has been recently demonstrated at the Center for Neuroacoustic Research and The California Institute for Human Science3 that communicative sound has a self-similarity in varying scales. For example, a recording of human speech taken to a higher frequency is demonstrably identical to the sound of birds. Taken higher in scale, it emulates identically the sound of dolphins. Taken even higher, we hear cricket chirps. If we reverse the process, starting from a recording of crickets and up the scale it goes from dolphin chirps to bird warbling to human speech patterns. Due to the extreme differences in linguistic structures, it's difficult to imagine why this would occur without a proper context.4 This research definitely merits much more attention.
You'll note, from reference 2, that Gariaev's proposal implies a homonym inclusion in the linguistics of DNA. In other words, on a very base level, there's no real difference between DNA linguistic oscillating sound and the language of sound waves orally emanating from humans. Taking the fractality of communicative sound, we can logically conclude that human speech patterns taken to the microwave ranges of DNA oscillations should have the same sound. Not the same language, but still a linguistic code encoded in informational wave format emulating the sounds of DNA "speech" patterns.
The first known recorded incidence of a solitonic wave occurred in 1834 at Union Canal. Fortunately, the observer was John Scott Russell, a Scottish Ship Engineer.5 Since then, the study of "rogue waves" at sea has been vast. It has been found6 that solitonic wave formations are due to nonlinear superpositioning of mechanical longitudinal and water transverse waves at resonance. Being extremely similar to the notion of quantum coherence, it only makes sense that we extend the concept to quantum theory. Many attempts7 have been made, some of which seem quite promising. This mode of conception explains, in far more simplistic terms than modern theories, atomic absorption and emission, light pulse propagation, the generation and destruction of matter, the tunneling effect, wave/matter duality, and strange particle interactions, just to name a few of the mysteries of the quantum realm addressed by this model. In short, all chaotic quantum phenomena have a new light shed on them within the context of a solitonic interpretation.
In Gariaev's Phantom DNA, we can take these notions to a whole new level. His proposal of holographic solitonic projection, the transduction of light from the mechanical sound (linguistic) oscillations of the DNA molecules, and the resonant nonlinear combination of these waves, form a standing wave blueprint at just the proper scale for matter generation from the virtual particle field. Just as an atomic electron pulls from this field to negentropically produce light, so too does this soliton, encoded with the spatial and temporal dimensions for the proper mass and charges, generate from the field an exact replica of itself cellularly "over there". The implications of this are vast and will not be discussed further in this paper.8, 9
Unifying these two aspects of the phenomena, one can utilize a very simple apparatus for study of the essence of Gariaev, if not the Phantom DNA itself. Within a reactive electrical circuit, a crystal has the ability to stochastically (randomly by chance) take a fluctuating alternating current and pit it to resonance, hence generating just the right timing and signal needed to minimize impedence. This effect has been taken for granted for years, as well as its cousin, the piezoeffect, and it's the author's opinion that further study should be done to find a satisfactory explanation.
Using these properties of crystal, one can generate a mechanical oscillation from induction of sound waves within the crystal. At resonance, amplification takes place. So taking Gariaev's language fractality of DNA, and the recent studies of communicative noise, a proper apparatus for exploration into the phenomena of soliton generation is feasible.
A crystal, set to proper boundary conditions, could be bombarded with simple monosyllabic expressions, (i.e. - cat, hat, got, mop, juice, etc.), with the frequency pattern modified to microwave range frequencies of the like of the proposed DNA oscillations. The sympathetically oscillating crystal can then be fed the light from a laser, attuned to the same fundamental noise pattern as the sound, also in the microwave ranges. At resonance, should Gariaev be correct, a nonlinear standing combination of these two waves, one longitudinal and one transverse, should generate an extended absorption field, similar to the one seen during atomic or antenna absorption of EM radiation (theoretically caused by the same effect). But what's more, variations in the communicated pattern should generate variations within this sonoluminescent solitonic convergence. For an extended study, phrases of many words, or higher syllable words, could be fed into the crystal and tested under the same apparatus. The variations of the solitons should be demonstrably noticeable.
Summary and Concluding Words:
In conclusion, I would like to say that the Gariaev Phantom DNA effect has been, for the edge physicists at least, to put it in terms of chaos theory, a strange attractor; unattainable, yet too enlightening to ignore. Under these circumstances, the only feasible measurements available are the orbiting bifurcating cycles, the surrounding evidential experimentation done close to it that is verifiable. The work of Dr. Emoto10 is one example of circumstantial evidence surrounding the cloud of Phantom DNA. The above proposal is another. It is of no doubt to the author's mind that several more such verifiable pieces will be forthcoming over the next few years. To put it another way, if we can't reach Phantom DNA, at the very least we can infer it from enough circumstantial evidence build-up.
- Gariaev, Peter P., et. al. "Crisis in Life Sciences. The Wave Genetics Response." at http://www.emergentmind.org/gariaev06.htm
- Gariaev, Peter P., et. al. "The DNA-wave Biocomputer" at http://www.rialian.com/rnboyd/dna-wave.doc
- Voss, R. "Evolution of Long-range Fractal Correlations and 1/f Noise in DNA Base Sequences." Phys. Rev. Letters, 68(25): 3805-3808, 1992.
- Russell, J. Scott. "Report on Waves." Report Brit. Assn. Advancement Sci., 1945.
- Cf. Kasman, Alex at http://math.cofc.edu/kasman/SOLITONPICS/index.html
- Cf., for example, Vongehr, Sascha. "Solitons." at http://physics1.usc.edu/~vongehr/solitons_html/solitons.pdf
- Miller, Iona and Richard and Webb, Burt. "QUANTUM BIOHOLOGRAPHY: A Review of the Field from 1973 - 2002." at http://www.emergentmind.org/MillerWebbI3a.htm
- Laszlo, Ervin. "Subtle Connections: Psi, Grof, Jung, and the Quantum Vacuum." Int'l. Soc. for the Sys. Sci., 1996
- Emoto, Masaru, trans. Thayne, David A. "The Hidden Messages in Water." Beyond Words Publishing, 2004.