Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Requirement for Zero Magnetic field studies may apply to anomalous research too?
#1
Requirement for Hypomagnetic field (Zero field) studies may apply to anomalous research?

It’s already known that hyper-weak non-thermal magnetic fields can affect organisms. A well known and reproducible effect involves migration and navigation of birds, turtles and other organisms called Magnetoreception. Although a mechanism has not yet been identified, behavioral studies on animals can reliably produce the effect at magnetic field strengths from one to a few tens of nanoTesla (nT). These effects can be reliably produced in the presence of the much stronger natural geomagnetic fields generated from within earths core. Despite the magnetic field from the planet core being thousands of times stronger than the weak magnetic field strengths which the researchers are using, the researchers can still reliably produce these behavioral effects wthin organisms without them being drowned out by the stronger fields.

It’s worthwhile providing some comparisons to demonstrate just how weak the magnetic field strengths used in Magnetoreception studies are…

[Image: magnetic_fields_strengths.jpg?w=584&h=403]

Beyond these Magneoreception studies lies the research into non-specific hyper-weak magnetic field effects in organisms which falls under the field of Magnetobiology in general. The bulk of the research into biological effects is here with many thousands of published papers.  But these studies suffer from poor reproducibility, and are nearly all unique, Prato & Binhi suggest in their recent paper that the principle causes being the random and nonspecific non-thermal effects that researchers don’t control for.

Prato & Binhi suggest that the only way to improve the reproducibility for studies in the field of Magnetobiology is to run them in isolated hypomagnetic environmental conditions. Prato has already shown how successful this strategy can be, in his own studies exploring the behavioral effects on mice after they are place inside Mu-Metal magnetically shielded chambers. And in a later study reintroducing controlled magnetic fields inside these shielded chambers.

They then argue, using copious amounts of research from a wide range of previous studies in hypomagnetic studies (magnetically shielded), that the results are still too random and well distributed, but are often of such weak or selective magnetic field strength or frequency that future research should probably focus on either a universal physical mechanism, or a molecular gyroscope mechanism, with a water proton mechanism being an outside possibility…

[Image: prato_binhi.png?w=584&h=123]

Looking at each of these – most likely – mechanisms in turn, they argue that:


Quote:The universal, or general physical, mechanism is interesting because its predictions do not depend on the nature of the molecular magnetic moments. It is assumed only that they precess and relax. Therefore, there is an attractive possibility to measure the MF target parameters, the gyromagnetic ratio and the thermal relaxation time, separately. The mechanism predicts the maximum effect of approximately 12% and the existence of HMF and ac/dc MF effects simultaneously in one and the same organism.

The magnetic moment of a molecular gyroscope does not precess. The moment occurs due to the rotation of charges that are distributed over the gyroscope—a rotating molecule with its ends temporarily fixed. Gyroscopic mechanism is attractive by the high value of the expected effects, up to 50%, and a relatively small value, 0.03, of the critical parameter γHτ. However, (i) the critical MF is highly dependent on the size of a virtual space for rotation, and (ii) the existence of the long-, or coherently, rotating parts of a protein chain in the process of folding has not yet been confirmed in any experiments besides magnetobiological ones.

The proton-exchange mechanism requires very precise technique for its validation—a magnetic exposure system that could eliminate any extraneous MF variations exceeding 1 nT. Available observations of 10 to 1000 greater critical MFs do not support the mechanism. In addition, this has not been mathematically developed to a level that would allow one to make experimentally verifiable predictions. Further, even if the mobility of a portion of water protons was really changed in 1-nT MFs, it is unclear how this change could affect the rate of biochemical reaction.
The magnetic fields used to produce these behavioral effects could be of such weakness that I would argue that that to be completely through. All future studies on organisms which are analyzing small and strange behavioral changes in organisms, are going to need to control for the environmental magnetic field conditions present during the experiment.


In my opinion, if this research suggests the use of magnetic shielding, and hypomagnetic conditions for reproducibility of these magnetobiological studies, then this must also have a bearing on the reproducibility of studies exploring anomalous human phenomena.

(Article previously posted on my blog at https://thinkingdeeper.wordpress.com/201...-research/ )
[-] The following 2 users Like Max_B's post:
  • Brian, Sciborg_S_Patel
Reply
#2
Looks like this went over everybodies heads...

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, if we need magnetic shielding on future studies researching magnetobiology to ensure reproducibility, then I thought it's obviously kinda important for reproducibility of anomalous phenomena too... that is magnetic fields are going to have to be controlled for in future studies into anomalous phenomena? Faraday cages ain't going to be enough.
[-] The following 3 users Like Max_B's post:
  • Brian, Sciborg_S_Patel, malf
Reply
#3
(08-16-2017, 03:12 PM)Max_B Wrote: Looks like this went over everybodies heads...

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, if we need magnetic shielding on future studies researching magnetobiology to ensure reproducibility, then I thought it's obviously kinda important for reproducibility of anomalous phenomena too... that is magnetic fields are going to have to be controlled for in future studies into anomalous phenomena? Faraday cages ain't going to be enough.

Some people have looked for correlations between the results of published psi experiments and fluctuations in the earth's magnetic field, haven't they? Do you think any conclusions can be drawn from those studies? The results seem a bit confusing.
Reply
#4
(08-20-2017, 12:12 PM)Brian Wrote: How much do we actually know about magnetic fields in relation to anomalous phenomena?  I remember long ago a study that showed that weak EM fields can produce hallucinations was shown to be flawed because suggestion was heavily involved but I haven't kept up to date on the research.  I've often wondered if PK for example is produced by conscious control of EM fields.

It's difficult to explain my perspective. I don't think people can understand what I'm talking about unless they give up on they way they've been taught to think about the world. I think you've got to give up on things like realism and direct perception. That's really hard to do.

I don't single magnetic fields out as being responsible for anomalous phenomena. Instead, I see that what we understand as magnetic fields etc., are actually just involved in my normal experience of everyday phenomena. Rather it's the odd bits of very obvious anomalous phenomena, that I believe are a clue that how we've traditionally come to understand how our everyday experiences come about, is inaccurate.

Sure, our ideas about how to explain how stuff works in between observations is pretty damn useful, that's the ideas about how one observation transforms to another observation in spacetime. It's just that our explanations are not good enough for me.

There are too many inconvenient dislocations of information in everyday human experiences. Those glimpses may be of the future, or the past, or things that should be too far away for us to know about. These are all dislocations of information within spacetime, they suggest that my experiences actually come about through a different method than we generally think they do.

Now all that's very vague. I can go into more detail. But most people ain't interested, they look at my ideas from their own perspective, and from that view, what I try to describe makes no sense.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Max_B's post:
  • Brian
Reply
#5
(08-20-2017, 12:25 PM)Chris Wrote: Some people have looked for correlations between the results of published psi experiments and fluctuations in the earth's magnetic field, haven't they? Do you think any conclusions can be drawn from those studies? The results seem a bit confusing.

I looked at them years ago... and moved on.
Reply
#6
(08-27-2017, 06:51 PM)Brian Wrote: Now I am interested if you are patient enough to explain.  I don't know much about science but I am quite philosophical and I am always looking for new ways of looking at things, especially given that existing models all seem to be somewhat flawed.  If you like, you can PM me.  Maybe my thinking could do with a spring clean and a fresh start anyway!

I'm certainly willing to talk and explain my own thoughts about this stuff. Although I don't know where to start...
[-] The following 1 user Likes Max_B's post:
  • Brian
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)