In other news, fractal antennas don't work any better than any other antennas when immersed in a bag of salt water, which is what a cell is.
Very relevant here...
DNA is a fractal antenna in electromagnetic fields (2011)
41–48 of 48 posts
Re: DNA is a fractal antenna in electromagnetic fields (2011)
#42One reason this is interesting is because of the possible role of charge transfer in the DNA repair mechanism. See the work of Jacqueline Barton's group at Caltech [1] for more information. Here was how it was described when she was awarded the National Medal of Science: "For discovery of a new property of the DNA helix, long-range electron transfer, and for showing that electron transfer depends upon stacking of the…
Just stick with HF, it's more fun anyway :)
Re: DNA is a fractal antenna in electromagnetic fields (2011)
#43From an evolutionary perspective, considering that environmental radiation can harm organisms, perhaps DNA evolves to be highly vulnerable to such radiation so that reproduction will fail in high radiation environments where the radiation would cause other damage later.
So maybe it's more like a fuse than an antenna.
Re: DNA is a fractal antenna in electromagnetic fields (2011)
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not completely accurate. If you consider the water to also be the antenna things are much more complicated. The ocean blocks radio waves because it is much much larger than them. A small (very small) ocean would act like an antenna, not an insulator.
No, the ocean blocks radio waves because its index of refraction at RF is very different from that of free space, resulting in a massive impedance mismatch at the boundary. In bulk matter, this is a scale-independent phenomenon.
By that logic copper would also block RF.
Re: DNA is a fractal antenna in electromagnetic fields (2011)
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, the ocean blocks radio waves because its index of refraction at RF is very different from that of free space, resulting in a massive impedance mismatch at the boundary. In bulk matter, this is a scale-independent phenomenon.
By that logic copper would also block RF.
Which it does. That Maxwell guy knew what he was talking about, believe it or not.
Re: DNA is a fractal antenna in electromagnetic fields (2011)
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
By that logic copper would also block RF.
Which it does. That Maxwell guy knew what he was talking about, believe it or not.
And yet it works as an antenna if it's the right size.
Salt water will also work as an antenna if it's the right size.
Which is what I said in my original message.
Re: DNA is a fractal antenna in electromagnetic fields (2011)
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which it does. That Maxwell guy knew what he was talking about, believe it or not.
And yet it works as an antenna if it's the right size. Salt water will also work as an antenna if it's the right size. Which is what I said in my original message.
There's actually a lot more to the question than size. RF is all about boundary conditions, and everything else is a consequence of that fact. It's a fascinating area of study, and in all seriousness, I'd recommend you take a look at some of the underlying principles behind EM physics and propagation. It'll help you reject "not even wrong" bullshit like what's portrayed in this article, and even better, it'll give you a deeper appreciation for the way wireless technology actually works.
Re: DNA is a fractal antenna in electromagnetic fields (2011)
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet it works as an antenna if it's the right size. Salt water will also work as an antenna if it's the right size. Which is what I said in my original message.
There's actually a lot more to the question than size. RF is all about boundary conditions, and everything else is a consequence of that fact. It's a fascinating area of study, and in all seriousness, I'd recommend you take a look at some of the underlying principles behind EM physics and propagation. It'll help you reject "not even wrong" bullshit like what's portrayed in this article, and even better, it'll give yo…
I didn't actually read the article, the title alone didn't make sense, I didn't check any further.
I was just refuting your assumption that because the DNA is in a cell that means it can not see any RF.