Replies

To be brief, suffice it to say that Popp eventually conjectured that the mechanism of cancer in biological systems proceeded from cancer’s ability to neutralize the “photo-repair mechanism” at the cellular level of the cancer-invaded organism. In other words, there are photons capable of work in the organic body, and cancer interferes with and finally overcomes their ability to effect necessary cellular repairs. Popp conducted many successful experiments tending to confirm this active photon-as-maintainer-of-living-systems hypothesis. But still, the results were not dispositive. Fast-forward to the relevant passage

A particularly gifted student [of Popp’s] talked him into trying an experiment. It is well known that when you apply a chemical called ethidium bromide to samples of DNA, the chemical squeezes itself into the middle of the base pairs of the double helix and causes it to unwind. The student suggested that, after applying the chemical, he and Popp try measuring the light coming off the sample. Popp discovered that the more he increased the concentration of the chemical, the more the DNA unwound, but also stronger the intensity of light.

OK, first of all, let me say I've done research with ethidium and other intercalation agents bound to DNA, some of which has been published in Science. It is a system I'm familiar with. And I'm a spectroscopist, teach mol. spec., at the advanced level, have a Ph.D. in biophysics, etc. Take that argument from authority for what it's worth.

McTaggert's description made no sense, so I looked up some of Popp's papers. He has essentially invented the field of 'biophotons'. There are conferences on it, and a lot of third world research on it, but it has the odor of crank research. I hadn't heard of it before this exchange. Popp has patented all sorts of applications in searching for tumor detection, infection, etc. Seen any of these devices in a hospital?

I searched the NIH grant database for 'biophoton', and found nothing. I think they're simply looking at a mixture of delayed luminescence and experimental artifacts. I may be an American chauvinist, but in my experience if it's a legitimate area of biophysical research, it would be funded by NIH. If there were any truth to his theory of carcinogenesis, someone over here would take it up, and steal the credit. Europeans complain about this all the time :-). Seriously, we understand a great deal about cancer, and it's not a result of impaired biophotons. Let me quote a phrase from one of the abstracts

One of the main difficulties in interpreting numerous biological effects of ultra-weak photon emission (UPE) produced by the living specimen is associated with its extremely low average intensity, which do not often significantly exceeds the level of a background count and is sometimes even lower

It's way down in the background, and you have to look really hard to see it. Riiiight.

Do me a favor, and look up the history of N-rays. Here's one source . The difference nowadays is that crank research (unless it would have earthshaking consequences, like 'cold fusion' or 'polywater') is simply ignored. There's no percentage in proving stuff like this wrong. But there's an enormous amount of utter crap published in scientific journals, and those of us in the field learn to look for tell-tale signs, and avoid it.

...do not often significantly exceeds the level of a background count and is sometimes even lower ...

LOL

Let me just add that the phenomena of radiative decay and radiationless decay are physical processes that are well understood, and for which there are quantitative theories. Long lived 'photon-storage' by organic molecules is simply impossible. The photochemistry of the DNA bases has been studied to death, as has the electronic structure. Excited states that don't have dipole-allowed transitions (such as triplets) and are therefore long lived (milliseconds - seconds) also react and damage the DNA. That's why UV radiation causes cancer.

One more reply to myself; there is a phenomenon called chemiluminescence, which occurs because certain chemical reactions produce molecules in excited states, which then emit light to go into the ground state. That's how fireflies flash. A lot of tissues undergoing oxidative damage produce hydroxyl radicals, peroxides and superoxides, which react with proteins, lipids and nucleic acids, which then chemiluminesce at low levels. My guess is these 'biophotons' are chemiluminescence. Microsomes in particular chemiluminesce, since these are the organelles that do a lot of the oxidative detoxification in the cells.