Re: another not-April Fool's-post...
Sun, 28 Mar 1999 22:00:55 -0800

Damien Broderick, <>, writes:
> Of course, that's one's immediate response. But what distinguished N rays
> from X rays was not that they seemed *weird* and *inexplicable* (given the
> then-current paradigms) but the fact that they could not be reliably
> replicated. If this new effect *works* - ya gotta love that modem whistle
> down the line perking up the poor ailing tissues - then we do have an
> expanded biology. And this process could help with the global binding
> problem in brain function, and solve some of Penrose's apparent non-local
> effects mebbe.

The problem isn't just that this would be a completely new model for how molecules interact, but that it seems to invalidate existing models. The notion that molecules interact through physical contact has been the basis for all of chemistry as well as biology. If nonlocal interactions are possible why haven't we seen them in chemistry? You wouldn't need an expensive catalyst, you could just shake it in water as you dilute it to the vanishing point. I find it hard to believe that such an important effect would have been overlooked by practical, profit driven chemical engineers for over 100 years.

And then there is all the successful work with current models in biology, like drug design based on the lock and key concept. Why should it be that we find that effective drugs and hormones do in fact fit their receptor molecules using a physical connection model? A remote resonance concept doesn't explain that very well.

It would be one thing if the guy proposing this had some credibility, but he's apparently been guilty of claiming remarkable effects which he wasn't able to reproduce in front of skeptics. That's a pretty weak basis for paying attention when he claims that everything we know is wrong.