"A crayfish was put in a sea water basin from which calcium carbonate had been removed by precipitation; the animal made its shell anyway." //... "Chemical analysis made on animals secreting their shells has revealed that calcium carbonate is formed on the outer side of a membrane although on the opposite side of the membrane, where matter enters, there is no calcium. This fact has left specialists perplexed." (Kervran 1972, p.58)
There has long been debate on this - Kervran's proposition is that crabs routinely transmute magnesium into calcium; Mg + O => Ca.
Kervran (1972, p.52) described experiments performed in 1959 by the French government in the Sahara desert. The government was interested in determining the nutritional requirements of petroleum workers in the extreme heat prevalent in the desert. The second experiment lasted for 240 days and was conducted near Tindouf which has a drier climate. This time each man excreted each day an average of 256 milligrams of magnesium more than he ingested. Under these conditions, after 20 days, each man should have been completely depleted of magnesium; but somehow they survived for 220 days thereafter. It seems difficult to avoid the conclusion that the human body is able to create magnesium.
Kervran, C. Louis. Biological Transmutation. New York: Swan House Publishing Company, 1972
"Ig Nobel" prize 1993
... everywhere I read of this I see a lot of animosity_skillfully_disguised_as_irony. In fact too much for it not to raise an eyebrow.
In http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10773-009-0124-9 I show that certain 2-body interactions allow an energy minimum also in a 3rd state (non-fermionic, non-bosonic), which allows entanglement oscillations.
Since the nucleus is all about "condensation" (n-fermions give a lot of gammas before they come together as 1-system, as a 100% entangled state), it is conceivable that bodies that possess said "certain" interaction-type can move on "palier"-states (iso-energetical), but varying in wave-function overlap. [i.e. - dis-entangle]
Iso-energetical part-dis-entanglement (and part-re-entanglement) conceivably could mean transmutation.
Any thoughts on this ?
the fullerene cage is perhaps they way cold-fusion was first expected to be explained.
nuclear power plants have water for cooling (and for emergencies) and some for cooling (10 years) the spent fuel before it goes into processing (to low/high level rad. waste).
Remi has said exhaustively.
There is just a self-evident limitation in energy. A typical energy of electron for biological systems is just few eV. A typical energy for nuclear reactions is about 1 MeV. The difference is about 1000000 times.
The talks about the "cold fusion" for biological systems are known from 1980th. It's like a "perpetuum mobile" and other same things. Just a bunch of incorrect experiments without any serious science.
If it would be possible, there were a lot of other consequences for the whole world. Whole physics would be different, not only a shell of a bloody crab :)
Sorry for the strong statement, but as a biophysicist I see a lot of explanations for some questionable experiments with living objects, which sometimes are presented as examples of "biological cold fusion", without any nuclear processes.
binding energy = a matter of entanglement
no-entanglement => binding energy gone
read the paper I linked - entanglement happens just to lower energy.
but entanglement is not just plain: it has certain mechanisms, certain intricacies.
one is "palier-states" (same energy, different entanglement ratios) - this leads to the (hypothetical) speculation that we could (maybe) disentangle a system into constituents without "breaking" it (over the energy barrier) - hence the bio-transmutation idea.
Remi is right.
The science is differ from religion - it's incorrect to say "just read this sacred book!" in scientific seminar. If you say "theoretically, it is possible", you must show a way - how?!
All biological processes are going on the level of valent electrons, nuclear processes stay away on energy scale. The statement about the possibility of biological nuclear reactions is extremly strong and, obviously, it is necessary to have very serious proofs.
Yeah "science has had its embarassing moments" - plus the gov briefing:
http://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS00/20160427/104832/BILLS-114-HR4909-W000795-Amdt-ETCEB1.pdf
.... the only embarrasing thing is donkey-stubborness. "for in the plane of sincerity there are no contradictions, just like there is no contradiction in experience. An experience takes the place of another experience, it does not contradict it."
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Particle Physics