6th Sense: 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.
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.
Based on these research data, two questions arise:
Question 1: Whether and how noncoding DNA would affect biophoton emission?
Question 2: Whether and how biophoton emission would affect inter-organism communication?
Thank you for reading till here. You will enjoy even more exciting insights in Part 2 of this story.
Gurwitsch, A. G. (1934). The mitogenetic radiation. Ann Physol , 10.
Bischof, M. (1995). Biophotons — The Light in Our Cells. Frankfurt: Zweitausendeins.
Popp, A., & Zhang, J. (2000). Mechanism of interaction between electromagnetic fields and living organisms. Science in China , 43 (5), 507–18.
Sun Y., W. C. (2010). Biophotons as neural communication signals demonstrated by in situ biophoton autography. Photochem. Photobiol. Sci.
Mayburov, S. N. (2011). Photonic Communications and Information Encoding in Biological Systems. Quant. Com. Com. , 11, 73.
Grass, F., Klima, H., & Kasper, S. (2004). Biophotons, microtubules and CNS, is our brain a “Holographic computer”? Medical Hypotheses , 62, 169–172.
Rahnama, M., Bokkon, I., Tuszynski, J., Cifra, M., Sardar, P., & V, S. (2011). Emission of Mitochondrial Biophotons and their Effect on Electrical Activity of Membrane via Microtubules. J Integrative Neuroscience , 10 (1), 65–88.
Wang C, B. I. (2011). Spontaneous and visible light-induced ultraweak photon emission from rat eyes. Brain Reserch , 1369:1–9.
Popp, A., Nagl, W., Li, K., Scholz, W., Weingartner, O., & Wolf, R. (1984). Biophoton emission. New evidence for coherence and DNA as source. Cell Biophys , 6 (1), 33–52.