Space-time waves in biology and the significance for interaction of living systems with electromagnetic radiation by Dr Chris Barnes, Bangor Scientific and Educational Consultants, October 2013. E-mail doctor.barnes@univ.bangor.ac.uk

Dr Barnes Homepage http://www.drchrisbarnes.co.uk

Abstract

Possible reasons are advanced as to why some scientists and engineers find it impossible to open their minds to the notion that even weak or very weak electro-magnetic fields might be able to interact with and damage biological tissue. Multi-disciplinary and Interdisciplinary approaches are surely the key to better understanding. All biological processes take place in both space and time. Chemists, Physicists and Engineers are more used to considering processes to be spatiality homogenised such that all the physical conditions are the same at different locations. Chemical engineers refer to this condition as the CSTR (continuously stirred tank reactor). Biological systems, however, are not CSTRS. In fact we recognise biological systems as having complex internal structure capable of creating intricate patterns spanning many levels of size and complexity from sub-cellular to whole organism level. Many biological processes are prima fascia governed by simple diffusion. Yet surprisingly, numerical simulations of a simple reaction--diffusion model reveal a surprising variety of irregular spatio--temporal patterns. Wherever in biology there are patterns in space and time this is tantamount to waves, which may be spiral or longitudinal. The question thus arises can one develop a more universal explanation as to how any or all of this nine orders of magnitude of electromagnetic frequency could interact with biological tissue and systems? Just like a biological reaction, a radio wave propagates its energy and momentum in both space and time. Weak Frolich condensates may have profound effects on chemical and enzyme kinetics, and may be produced from biochemical energy or from radio frequency, microwave, or terahertz radiation. Pokorný's observed 8.085-MHz microtubulin resonance is identified as a possible candidate, with microwave reactors (green chemistry) and terahertz medicine appearing as other feasible sources. Biophoton emissions at higher frequencies are regularly observed. Incoming radiation pressure will profoundly influence space-time dependent biological reactions. The problem of assigning a momentum to an electromagnetic wave packet propagating inside an insulator has become known under the name of the Abraham–Minkowski controversy. Testa (2013) re-examines this issue making the hypothesis that the forces exerted on an insulator ( e.g. a biological dielectric) by an electromagnetic field do not distinguish between polarization and free charges. Under this assumption it can be shown that the Abraham expression as defined also by McDonald (2012) for the radiation mechanical momentum is highly favoured. Spatial disturbances from hydrogen bond level upwards through macromolecular and cellular organelle level to whole organism level will occur due to the traditional absorption routes of dielectric relaxation, displacement current, dielctrophoresis and magnetophoresis together with radiation pressure and hidden radiation pressure at interfaces. We now have a clear mechanism of interaction wherein electromagnetic radiation of any frequency albeit non-ionising can influence biological reactions and systems generally. Further it provides a link with vibroacoustic disease where acoustic-mechanical signals cause biological damage again by spatial perturbation of biological reactions. Perhaps it is high time that those with the purse strings realised that they will be no more immune to the unforeseen effect of technology than the rest us. They/we should all strive for a far better understanding of bio-electomagnetic processes and ‘electromagnetic man’. The author remains convinced that safe windows of frequency and safe(r) modulation schemes will be found to allow humans, plants and animals to co-exist with EMF and RFR technology which is of course already also being used in the treatment of some of the diseases it ironically causes and/or accelerates.

Introduction

Electromagnetic technology encompasses everything from basic power generation to computer systems and communication. The former commenced in the early twentieth century, the latter two have shown an unsurpassed explosion in the early twenty-first century. In terms of electromagnetic frequency (cycles per second) such technologies expose us to a range of more than nine orders of magnitude. Compared with light, the quantum energies of these radiations are so low that they are thought of as incapable of breaking chemical bonds, i.e. non ionising (1). This has led some to suggest that electromagnetic radiation should be harmless if non-thermal. On the other hand if a thermal interaction takes place an electrical current flows in the tissue causing heating and obvious damage. At the same time dielectric absorption by any polarisable material from water to protein molecules also takes place which is not just limited to the thermal case. Additionally, it will be shown below that molecular motion due to dielectric relaxation of water and macromolecules is far more significant than had previously been thought. Further in some types of field dielctrophoresis of cells and cellular organelles may occur as may magnetophoresis. Such movement and/or displacement from equilibrium position of cells and organelles can also be very relevant in some biological processes depending on the timescales involved.

There are significant bodies of experimental evidence, some 60 -70% of which suggest that non-thermal electromagnetic interactions with tissue are capable of causing biological change and/or damage. Doubtless, if the figure were 100% all electromagnetic apparatus would carry the same health warning as, for example, cigarettes, or human kind would have even developed technology in a very different way.

Several fundamental problems are perceived. Firstly, biological experiments of any sort whatsoever are never as reproducible as fundamental experiments in Physics or Chemistry. Secondly, few Biologists understand electromagnetic field and antenna theory. This for example may mean that when people have tried to duplicate, for example, radio frequency exposure experiments some of the material has been in the near field, some in the transitional field and some in the far field. Thirdly few, if any, traditional Physicists, Engineers, or Chemists understand Biological Systems sufficiently well to conceive that there ought to be any interaction with electromagnetic energy other than a straightforward quantum energetic absorption process. Finally, there are multiple theories put forward by those who have attempted to explain the bio-electro-magnetic interaction some of which are perhaps unnecessarily complex, some of which are untestable and some of which simply don’t account for all the observations.

Clearly, a more interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary approach needs to be taken in order to produce a more unified theory of the bio-electro-magnetic interaction. Also before such a theory is developed, perhaps sceptics need convincing that non-thermal interactions between high level biological organisms, do in fact, occur. From the perspective of the present author, one piece of work elegantly illustrates such interaction and demonstrates that radio frequency energy can have a direct effect on the parasympathetic nervous system see for example, Huttunen P, Hänninen O, Myllyla R 2009 (2) and Havas and Marrongelle (2013) (3). The question thus arises can one develop a more universal explanation as to how any or all of this nine orders of magnitude of electromagnetic frequency could interact with biological tissue and systems?

Space-time waves in Biology

All biological processes take place in both space and time. Chemists, Physicists and Engineers are more used to considering processes to be spatiality homogenised such that all the physical conditions are the same at different locations. Chemical engineers refer to this condition as the CSTR (continuously stirred tank reactor). Biological systems, however, are not CSTRS. In fact we recognise biological systems as having complex internal structure capable of creating intricate patterns spanning many levels of size and complexity from sub-cellular to whole organism level.

Such patterns set biological clocks. Such patterns arrange DNA as arranged within for example cellular nuclei and mitochondria. Such patterns govern intracellular communication. Such patterns make neural networks develop and work. Many aspects of our lives are regulated by these patterns, from the molecular to the macroscopic scale. Patterns play a central role in animal behaviour, the control of the cell cycle and cell morphogenesis, the structure of proteins, the sequence of DNA and proteins, and many more aspects of biology. Though some of these patterns are well characterized, there are others that we are only beginning to understand.

Recent experiments have provided new quantitative measurements of the rippling phenomenon in fields of developing myxobacteria cells, Igoshin et al 2001 (4). These measurements have enabled the development of mathematical models for the ripple phenomenon on the basis of the biochemistry of the C-signaling system, whereby individuals signal by direct cell contact. The model quantitatively reproduces all of the experimental observations and illustrates how intracellular dynamics, contact-mediated intercellular communication, and cell motility can coordinate to produce collective behavior. This pattern of waves is qualitatively different from that observed in other social organisms, especially Dictyostelium discoideum, which depend on diffusible morphogens.

Wherever in biology there are patterns in space and time this is tantamount to waves, which may be spiral, circular, travelling, stationary and/or coherent. For example, Prechtl et al (1997) have shown visual stimuli induce waves of electrical activity in turtle cortex (5) . They show low frequency oscillations (<5 Hz) in both ongoing activity and activity induced by visual stimuli. These oscillations propagate parallel to the afferent input. Higher frequency activity, with spectral peaks near 10 and 20 Hz, is seen solely in response to stimulation. This activity consists of plane waves and spiral-like waves, as well as more complex patterns. The plane waves have an average phase gradient of ≈π/2 radians/mm and propagate orthogonally to the low frequency waves. Their results show that large-scale differences in neuronal timing are present and persistent during visual processing. Such frequency patterns are crucial in brain function and were observed in training a cold chip rat brain cell assembly of as little as 20,000 neurons to fly an F22 flight-simulator through a turbulent thunderstorm (6).

Brain waves are perhaps the most obvious manifestation of patterns in biology, even brain component to component during sleep may re-enforce memory. Both neocortical and hippocampal networks organize the firing patterns of their neurons by prominent oscillations during sleep, but the functional role of these rhythms is not well understood. Neuronal discharges between the somatosensory cortex and hippocampus on both slow and fine time scales in the mouse and rat. Neuronal bursts in deep cortical layers, associated with sleep spindles and delta waves/slow rhythm, effectively triggered hippocampal discharges related to fast (ripple) oscillations. Oscillation-mediated temporal links may coordinate specific information transfer between neocortical and hippocampal cell assemblies. Such a neocortical–hippocampal interplay may be important for memory consolidation.

Many biological processes are prima fascia governed by simple diffusion. Yet surprisingly, numerical simulations of a simple reaction--diffusion model reveal a surprising variety of irregular spatio--temporal patterns. These patterns arise in response to finite--amplitude perturbations. Some of them resemble the steady irregular patterns discussed by Lee et al. 2007 (7). Others consist of spots which grow until they reach a critical size at which time they divide in two. If, in some region, the spots become overcrowded, all the spots in that region decay into the uniform background, see Pearson 1993 (8).

The specificity of cellular responses to receptor stimulation is encoded by the spatial and temporal dynamics of downstream signalling networks. Temporal dynamics are coupled to spatial gradients of signalling activities, which guide pivotal intracellular processes and tightly regulate signal propagation across a cell. Computational models provide insights into the complex relationships between the stimuli and the cellular responses, and reveal the mechanisms that are responsible for signal amplification, noise reduction and generation of discontinuous bistable dynamics or oscillations, see Cell Signalling Dynamics in Space and Time, Kholodenko (2006) (9).

Indeed so much in relation to the space time patterns of cell signalling has been discovered recently that genetic circuits with predictive functionality of living cells can now be made representing a defining focus of the expanding field of synthetic biology, see for example O'Malley et al (10). This focus was elegantly set in motion a decade ago with the design and construction of a genetic toggle switch and an oscillator, with subsequent highlights that have included circuits capable of pattern generation, noise shaping, edge detection and event counting (11).

Just like a biological reaction, a radio wave propagates its energy and momentum in both space and time. The potential is set then for wave-wave interaction. Wave -wave interactions are a fundamental concept in mathematics and physics (12).

The electromagnetic connection

Some thirty years or so before these contemporary findings the late and brilliant Professor of State Physics, Herbert Frolich first proposed a link between quantum physics and biology showing theoretically that a driven set of oscillators can condense with nearly all of the supplied energy activating the vibrational mode of lowest frequency, see 'I am God, so are you. Now Peace,' by Lucho Medina (13). This is a remarkable property usually compared with Bose–Einstein condensation, superconductivity, lasing, and other unique phenomena involving macroscopic quantum coherence. However, despite intense research, no unambiguous example has been documented. Fröhlich condensates are classified into 3 types: weak condensates in which profound effects on chemical kinetics are possible, strong condensates in which an extremely large amount of energy is meant to be channelled into 1 vibration mode, and coherent condensates in which this energy is placed in a single quantum state. Coherent condensates have recently been shown to involve extremely large energies, to not be produced by the Wu–Austin dynamical Hamiltonian that provides the simplest depiction of Fröhlich condensates formed using mechanically supplied energy, and to be extremely fragile. They are inaccessible in a biological environment. Hence the Penrose–Hameroff orchestrated objective-reduction model and related theories for cognitive function that embody coherent Fröhlich condensation as an essential element are untenable.

Weak condensates, however, may have profound effects on chemical and enzyme kinetics, and may be produced from biochemical energy or from radio frequency, microwave, or terahertz radiation. Pokorný's observed 8.085-MHz microtubulin resonance is identified as a possible candidate, with microwave reactors (green chemistry) and terahertz medicine appearing as other feasible sources, (14).

Momentum Approach

In consideration of the bio-electromagnetic interaction few, if any, have considered that an electromagnetic wave carries momentum as well as energy. The momentum aspect will be crucial in wave-wave interactions in a dielectric solid such as a biological system. Consider the following argument, due to Einstein. Suppose that we have a railroad car of mass and length which is free to move in one dimension.. Suppose that electromagnetic radiation of total energy is emitted from one end of the car, propagates along the length of the car, and is then absorbed at the other end. The effective mass of this radiation is (from Einstein's famous relation ). At first sight, the process described above appears to cause the centre of mass of the system to spontaneously shift. This violates the law of momentum conservation (assuming the railway car is subject to no external forces). The only way in which the centre of mass of the system can remain stationary is if the railway car moves in the opposite direction to the direction of propagation of the radiation. In fact, if the car moves by a distance then the centre of mass of the system is the same before and after the radiation pulse provided that

It is assumed that in this derivation.

But, what actually causes the car to move? If the radiation possesses momentum then the car will recoil with the same momentum as the radiation is emitted. When the radiation hits the other end of the car then the car acquires momentum in the opposite direction, which stops the motion. The time of flight of the radiation is . So, the distance traveled by a mass with momentum in this time is

giving

Thus, the momentum carried by electromagnetic radiation equals its energy divided by the speed of light. The same result can be obtained from the well-known relativistic formula

relating the energy , momentum , and mass of a particle. According to quantum theory, electromagnetic radiation is made up of massless particles called photons. Thus,

for individual photons, so the same must be true of electromagnetic radiation as a whole. If follows that the momentum density of electromagnetic radiation equals its energy density over , so

It is reasonable to suppose that the momentum points along the direction of the energy flow (this is obviously the case for photons), so the vector momentum density (which gives the direction, as well as the magnitude, of the momentum per unit volume) of electromagnetic radiation is

Thus, the momentum density equals the energy flux over .

Of course, the electric field associated with an electromagnetic wave oscillates rapidly, which implies that the previous expressions for the energy density, energy flux, and momentum density of electromagnetic radiation are also rapidly oscillating. It is convenient to average over many periods of the oscillation (this average is denoted ). Thus,

where the factor comes from averaging . Here, is the peak amplitude of the electric field associated with the wave.

Since electromagnetic radiation possesses momentum then it must exert a force on bodies which absorb (or emit) radiation. Suppose that a body is placed in a beam of perfectly collimated radiation, which it absorbs completely. The amount of momentum absorbed per unit time, per unit cross-sectional area, is simply the amount of momentum contained in a volume of length and unit cross-sectional area: i.e., times the momentum density . An absorbed momentum per unit time, per unit area, is equivalent to a pressure. In other words, the radiation exerts a pressure on the body. Thus, the radiation pressure is given by

So, the pressure exerted by collimated electromagnetic radiation is equal to its average energy density.

Consider a cavity filled with electromagnetic radiation. What is the radiation pressure exerted on the walls? In this situation, the radiation propagates in all directions with equal probability. Consider radiation propagating at an angle to the local normal to the wall. The amount of such radiation hitting the wall per unit time, per unit area, is proportional to . Moreover, the component of momentum normal to the wall which the radiation carries is also proportional to . Thus, the pressure exerted on the wall is weighted by the average of over all solid angles, in order to take into account the fact that obliquely propagating radiation exerts a pressure which is times that of normal radiation. The average of over all solid angles is , so for isotropic radiation

Clearly, the pressure exerted by isotropic radiation is one third of its average energy density.

In order to get some idea of typical radiation pressure consider the power incident on the surface of the Earth due to radiation emitted by the Sun which is about Wm . So, what is the radiation pressure? Since,

then

Here, the radiation is assumed to be perfectly collimated. Thus, the radiation pressure exerted on the Earth is minuscule (one atmosphere equals about Nm ). Nevertheless, biological sensitivity to pressures even lower is exhibited by the human ear. Such sensitivity represents physical displacement of biological organelles by fractions of a nanometre.

The problem of assigning a momentum to an electromagnetic wave packet propagating inside an insulator has become known under the name of the Abraham–Minkowski controversy, see for example Mansuripur (2012) (15). Testa (2013) (16) re-examines this issue making the hypothesis that the forces exerted on an insulator by an electromagnetic field do not distinguish between polarization and free charges. Under this assumption it can be shown that the Abraham expression as defined also by McDonald (2012) (17) for the radiation mechanical momentum is highly favoured. A biological system with moving parts is ideally favoured for absorbing and manifesting hidden RF radiation momentum following these arguments.

Bio-electromagnetic interaction

We can now understand how biological systems can generate complex space-time mechanical and electromagnetic waves, for example bio-photon emission of photons in the visible range by animal cells and tissues which has been described by Soh (2004) and Tafur et al (2008) (18) for a variety of organs and by many authors. Biophotons of a whole range of even lower frequencies have now been observed, see LV Beloussov, VL Voeikov, VL Voeĭkov, VS Martynyuk - 2007 - books.google.com or Gardeners Books 2010 (19).

Considering all of the above, it is not surprising therefore if a biological system is bombarded by electromagnetic radiation carrying its own energy and particularly momentum/pressure punch that key reactions in space and time will be disturbed. Spatial disturbances from hydrogen bond level upwards through macromolecular and cellular organelle level to whole organism level will occur due to the traditional absorption routes of dielectric relaxation, displacement current, dielctrophoresis and magnetophoresis together with radiation pressure and hidden radiation pressure at interfaces.

We now have a clear mechanism of interaction wherein electromagnetic radiation of any frequency albeit non-ionising can influence biological reactions and systems generally. Further it now provides us with an important and previously missing link with vibroacoustic disease where acoustic-mechanical signals cause biological damage again in a similar mode to that of RF radiation by spatial perturbation of biological reactions. Vibroacoustic disease (VAD) is a whole-body, systemic pathology, characterized by the abnormal proliferation of extra-cellular matrices, and caused by excessive exposure to low frequency noise (LFN). VAD has been observed in LFN-exposed professionals, such as, aircraft technicians, commercial and military pilots and cabin crewmembers, ship machinists, restaurant workers, and disk-jockeys. VAD has also been observed in several populations exposed to environmental LFN. This report summarizes what is known to date on VAD, LFN-induced pathology, and related issues. In 1987, the first autopsy of a deceased VAD patient was performed. The extent of LFN induced damage was overwhelming, and the information obtained is, still today, guiding many of the associated and ongoing research projects. In 1992, LFN-exposed animal models began to be studied in order to gain a deeper knowledge of how tissues respond to this acoustic stressor. In both human and animal models, LFN exposure causes thickening of cardiovascular structures. Indeed, pericardial thickening with no inflammatory process, and in the absence of diastolic dysfunction, is the hallmark of VAD. Depressions, increased irritability and aggressiveness, a tendency for isolation, and decreased cognitive skills are all part of the clinical picture of VAD.

LFN as with EMF and RFR is a demonstrated genotoxic agent, inducing an increased frequency of sister chromatid exchanges in both human and animal models. The occurrence of malignancies among LFN -exposed humans, and of metaplastic and displastic appearances in LFN-exposed animals, clearly corroborates the mutagenic outcome of LFN exposure.

It is only reasonable to expect that in future there will be an explosion of oxidative stress type disease such as cancers and ischemia associated with electromagnetic technologies.

To date it has seemed to be a sad feature that ’big business’ funded research has often set out to disprove biological RFR effects in the name of expansion. The burden appears to have fallen to lesser known universities and independent scientists to expose the truth in these areas. Perhaps it is high time that those with the purse strings realised that they will be no more immune to future unforeseen effects of the technology they create than the rest us of mere mortals who use it. They/we should all strive for a far better understanding of bio-electomagnetic processes and ‘electromagnetic man’.

The future will not be all gloom and doom. The author remains convinced that safe windows of frequency and safe(r) modulation schemes will be found to allow humans, plants and animals to co-exist with EMF and RFR technology which is also of course already also being used in the treatment of some of the diseases it ironically causes and/or accelerates.

References

1. http://www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/ionize_nonionize.html

2. http://www.emf-portal.de/viewer.php?aid=16894&l=e

3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23675629

4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC64958/

5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC23872/

6. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdfF0OnjdPg

7. http://jaguar.biologie.hu-berlin.de/~wolfram/pages/seminar_theoretische_biologie_2007/literatur/schaber/Lee1992Science261.pdf

8. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/261/5118/189

9. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1679905/

10. http://lifecognitionschool.ias-research.net/files/2010/06/omalleyetal.pdf

11. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7279/abs/nature08753.html