I am attaching the links of two articles:

  1. Mathematic model for vibration behaviour analysis of DNA

  2. DNA Phantom Effect

In the introduction section of the first article it mentions that Poponin tried to demonstrate that DNA can open micro wormholes. How is this possible?

I am a student of medicine without extensive knowledge of physics but the only thing troubling me is that as far as I have learned, the only thing differentiating science from fiction is solid facts, peer review and reproducibility.

My main question is:

DNA is just a compound made of some known and common elements which bind together with very commonly studied bonds. To open wormholes or create a black hole we require to bend and manipulate spacetime; Is there any conceivable way by which DNA or any compound/element can do that?(without needing to be super massive or have exotic properties).

Note: pardon me for the inconsistencies if any since I may not be well versed with the methods by which research articles are published. But it was my understanding that Nature is a good journal – how could it let such things be published? If it did, is there any truth to it.

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ The authors of the article are clearly specialists in the elasticity theory, but beyond that their claims are rather doubtful. Specifically, Luc Montagnier, although the Nobel prize recipient for discovering and sequencing the HIV virus, is known to engage in some disputable research, such as his article cited in the linked one. $\endgroup$ Aug 7 at 13:05
  • 23
    $\begingroup$ I disagree with the close votes. Yes, the question is about "non-mainstream" (i.e., bogus) physics, but this bogus theory has apparently made its way into a journal published by Nature Research. I find it understandable to ask "this seems like nonsense, can this really be mainstream physics", and important to answer "no". $\endgroup$
    – Noiralef
    Aug 7 at 14:04
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ ... "Nature is a good journal- how could it let such things be published?" That's my reaction, too. Do the cited reports carefully explore mundane possibilities like contamination as the explanation for the experimental results? Do the cited reports express a healthy degree of self-doubt, like urging other researchers to try reproducing their experiments to see if the effect is real? Do they even provide enough detail for other researchers to do so? You can apply these basic quality-checks without knowing anything about physics. $\endgroup$ Aug 7 at 14:21
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ There seems to be some confusion in the comments. Nature is a great journal. Nature is also a gigantic publishing group, which includes journals such as Scientific Reports, which are not nearly as esteemed. It's a mega-journal with relatively lax peer review. $\endgroup$
    – knzhou
    Aug 8 at 6:08
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I have edited the post to condense the list of questions into a single question, and I have voted to reopen. $\endgroup$
    – gandalf61
    Aug 8 at 7:37

Human society, even in science, is full of people looking for unusual kinds of connections or effects, and mechanisms by which they could occur. This can include people trying to explain psychic powers, justify ancient traditions, obtain miraculous energy sources, and so forth.

The role of physics in these situations is twofold. On the one hand, physics is a major source of principles which should render many things impossible: conservation of energy, light-speed limit, no action at a distance. On the other hand, physics is also a source of many exotic possibilities which give people hope for mechanisms to explain exotic effects: entanglement, wormholes, unknown new fields and particles.

As for this particular paper, the question is likely to be closed soon so I shall try to be quick. Absolutely DNA should not be able to "open micro wormholes". However, if you follow reference 10, you will find that it is a research note by Matti Pitkänen called "Wormhole Magnetic Fields". Pitkänen is a physicist who could have been a mainstream researcher - his published papers from the 1980s develop a theory of branes before string theorists did! - but for whatever reason, his lifework has been the development of an alternative theory which postulates vast layers of extra structure to physics - e.g. dark matter sectors which resemble the standard model of particle physics, but with the scale shifted - and this extra structure in turn gives him mechanisms for all kinds of anomalous effects.

I will add that it is now a relatively mainstream idea that any instance of quantum entanglement is actually a wormhole in some sense - this is known as "ER=EPR" - so if DNA could be shown to produce entanglement, it might technically be said to be producing quantum wormholes. However, these would not be traversible and are unlikely to explain the "DNA phantom effect" or other would-be anomalous phenomena. For these one would need the vast additional structure of a theory like Pitkänen's - or, more likely, a skeptical debunking of the alleged effect that the theory is meant to explain.

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for providing a comprehensive explanation for the same. Although such things keep popping in websites , I was just shocked after reading that article in a journal but now I can make some sense of it after your explanation. Do you also think (outside rigid physics) that it could be possible to engineer and produce custom sub atomic particles say by combining leptons in an artificial way? $\endgroup$
    – Swapnil B
    Aug 7 at 17:44
  • $\begingroup$ "Justify ancient traditions" ... I would broaden that to "Justify the philosophies they favor." $\endgroup$
    – LarsH
    Aug 7 at 22:12
  • $\begingroup$ @SwapnilB You might need to ask that as a new question, explaining what you mean... You can produce particles by colliding other particles, that's the main method we have for producing exotic particles. $\endgroup$ Aug 8 at 9:37
  • $\begingroup$ Okay @Mitchell Porter $\endgroup$
    – Swapnil B
    Aug 8 at 12:58

As I think you have already guessed yourself: DNA opening "micro wormholes" or "teleporting" is clearly outside the realm of mainstream physics. The cited reference [10] does not link to a peer-reviewed article, but to a website (archive.org link) that should make your trisector senses tingle.

It is unfortunate that this paragraph has made it into Scientific Reports, which is published by Nature Research. Note that this is a different journal than the highly prestigious Nature or Nature Physics, but it is the same publisher. Scientific Reports is in principle a reputable journal and not a predatory one. Its prestige is not very high though, since it publishes all scientifically sound submissions with no regard for scientific importance or impact. I can only guess, but I could imagine that the peer review was performed hastily due to the low prestige of the journal.

By the way, I make no statement about the rest of the rest of the article by Marvi and Ghadiri. I have not read it.

  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Well, if it is worm DNA it could eventually lead to wormholes. Just the regular ones in soil… $\endgroup$
    – Jon Custer
    Aug 7 at 14:45
  • $\begingroup$ It is a relief to know that it is not THE nature $\endgroup$
    – Swapnil B
    Aug 7 at 17:50

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.