This is going to sound dumb, but why can’t a Higgs boson particle be large enough to view? And why can’t a single cell be large compared to my height? Why do they exist in a state that is always smaller than my eyes can see? What is setting the scale on which everything is measured?

I am reading a book called Meselson, Stahl and the Replication of DNA. So far the book is good at explaining to a amateur the research that found the structure of DNA. In chapter one they are using X-rays to find the DNA in a single cell. It’s brilliant. But would it seem brilliant as the research is being conducted? Wouldn’t it be boring to measure with X-rays? But it worked and I guess that’s why it became awesome.

While I was doing research about cells and particles I came across the God particle who’s name has nothing to do with religion and named improperly. And I rediscovered a protein that resembles a cross. I know you guys are already aware of this protein. I find this interesting and it is easy to research because one only has to type a question into Gemini.

But I am interested in this for the same reason I was interested in Gematria and that is to find a pattern that unites the scientific with spiritual. The spiritual may have many implications in the science.

I want to treat genetics as a form of cryptography. Genetic patterns are found all the time, but I am not a biologist and the genetics might as well be written in a different language. What if we had build blocks and made genetic patterns as common as the cryptogram in the newspaper?

That is why I have an interest in biology. I know on a science forum this isn’t the preferred method of conducting scientific. But I don’t think it breaks the scientific method.

1 hour ago, Trurl said:

but why can’t a Higgs boson particle be large enough to view?

Because it’s a local excitation of a quantum field, like all other elementary particles too.

Also, the Higgs is electrically neutral, short lived, and couples to particles that allow for rest mass - thus, even if it was “big enough”, you still wouldn’t see it visually, as it does not absorb or emit photons.

I know Swansont has brought this up numerous times.

The questuion 'Why' is Metaphysical, or Philosophical; Science deals with 'How' things work.

12 hours ago, Trurl said:

This is going to sound dumb, but why can’t a Higgs boson particle be large enough to view? And why can’t a single cell be large compared to my height? Why do they exist in a state that is always smaller than my eyes can see? What is setting the scale on which everything is measured?

Scale, as in scaling, is one reason why a cell can’t be bigger.

12 hours ago, Trurl said:

I am reading a book called Meselson, Stahl and the Replication of DNA. So far the book is good at explaining to a amateur the research that found the structure of DNA. In chapter one they are using X-rays to find the DNA in a single cell. It’s brilliant. But would it seem brilliant as the research is being conducted? Wouldn’t it be boring to measure with X-rays? But it worked and I guess that’s why it became awesome.

What’s boring about using x-rays?

I want to treat genetics as a form of cryptography

It’s already referred to as the genetic code, but you need more than “let’s treat it like cryptography”

@Trurl

You have asked several apparently unconnected questions in your opening post which I find prretty confusing.

The short answer to seeing the Higgs Boson is that it does not interact with (real) photons, which your eyes use to see by.

So even if we could find some electromagnetic radiation of short enough wavelength it wouldn't 'see' the boson.

As regards pattern recognition, cryptography, DNA and modern Physics I recommend yo get a copy of Liam Graham's book "Molecular Storms"

“Liam Graham has that rare ability to take a seemingly staggeringly complex subject – life itself – and strip it down into a set of smaller problems. He then shows you, by argument, analogy, vivid examples and good-humoured persuasion, that each of these smaller problems is much more manageable, and can be related back to a few key concepts. Taken one at a time, each then becomes a staging point in your journey towards understanding the big picture.  Like all the best guides, his enthusiasm and sense of wonder are infectious.” Stephen Wright, Professor of Economics, Birkbeck College, University of London.

Liam inquires into all this in a digestible manner.

There is also some additional material on his website

The Material World - Molecular Storms

The Physics of Stars, Cells and the Origin of Life

12 hours ago, Trurl said:

And why can’t a single cell be large compared to my height? Why do they exist in a state that is always smaller than my eyes can see? What is setting the scale on which everything is measured?

The premise is wrong. There single cells that are visible by eye, and even some that are larger than you. Egg yolk is the ovum, essentially a single cell. Visible to the naked eye and chances are decent that you have already seen it. Cells that are larger than you, include slime mold, where large cells up to something like 10sqm or some Caulerpa species, which are single celled and have a reported length of something like 2 m, I think. And the explanation is also easy. Big things are more difficult to maintain than small things. But also not impossible.

15 hours ago, Trurl said:

In chapter one they are using X-rays to find the DNA in a single cell. It’s brilliant. But would it seem brilliant as the research is being conducted? Wouldn’t it be boring to measure with X-rays? But it worked and I guess that’s why it became awesome.

I don't think so. What has been done is to crystallize DNA and then using X-ray crystallography to identify its structure. It is not done in cells. You are probably confusing it with something like unit cells, which are the crystal lattice units. The whole crystal is of substantial size, and growing them at decent quality is rather challenging (Franklin did the diffraction analysis, though I am not sure whether she or a student created the crystal). And yes, X-ray crystallography still follows the same principles and is still the gold standard for structure determination.

But it seems to me that you are conflating things and try to mystify them to make them more in line with your understanding rather than try to understand and thereby demystify these concepts. (like the genetic code: 3 bases-> 1AA, not really cryptic).

Thanks for some excellent responses. I realized the post doesn’t seem to fit any one topic. It is just a reflection of things that have caught my interest.

I will share with you guys why I wanted to put crypto into the genetic code. I am not a biologist so I don’t know how the genetic code is organized. But when I was trying to find a pattern in Primes, I hypothesized that a logarithmic spiral could be modified to fit a pattern that reveals Prime numbers.

I couldn’t get it to work, but I hypothesized that a coordinate plane fitted to a logarithmic spiral could find useful patterns. And a double helix is just a log spiral and its mirror extruded along the z-axis.

As for particles always being smaller. What if instead of a Corvette you build a large “particle machine?” I mean enlarged a particle and rode it light speed across the universe on a light beam. Mechanically I don’t think we can build these machines based on current technology.I mean the things we currently build will never be capable to overcome the mechanical limitations.

9 minutes ago, Trurl said:

What if instead of a Corvette you build a large “particle machine?” I mean enlarged a particle

Not physically possible.

9 minutes ago, Trurl said:

and rode it light speed across the universe on a light beam.

Not physically possible.

Instead of posting WAGs, you might consider learning some science

12 minutes ago, swansont said:

Not physically possible

Maybe not, but isn’t finding an energy source to travel light speed physically impossible?

I’m not claiming it works. But do you agree with mechanics we are limited by our energy sources?

And we know light can travel the universe. I know it is science fiction but the method of light is all ready there. Why aren’t we trying to build particles?

56 minutes ago, Trurl said:

I couldn’t get it to work, but I hypothesized that a coordinate plane fitted to a logarithmic spiral could find useful patterns. And a double helix is just a log spiral and its mirror extruded along the z-axis.

The genetic code is not as such coupled to the three-dimensional structure of the DNA. It is dependent on the order of the base stacks, where three bases are coupled to an amino acid by the way tRNA, another molecule, that is loaded with amino acids. As a matter of fact the double helix is a more inert form of DNA, when the DNA is transcribed it opens up, losing this shape. And ultimately the code really is read in the form of mRNA (which is not helical) rather than DNA at ribosomes. So essentially you are linking things together that are don't really fit and then try to extrapolate it to something else based on a connection that is not really there.

As these things are so fundamentally disconnected, your approach really is more obfuscating than illuminating. You might as well argue that you want add crypto to DNA because green is your favorite color.

1 hour ago, Trurl said:

I will share with you guys why I wanted to put crypto into the genetic code. I am not a biologist so I don’t know how the genetic code is organized. But when I was trying to find a pattern in Primes, I hypothesized that a logarithmic spiral could be modified to fit a pattern that reveals Prime numbers.

I think if biology does connect to the prime number sequence, it would be due to the sieve of Eratosthenes. I understand that cicadas actually do this.

40 minutes ago, CharonY said:

se things are so fundamentally disconnected, your approach really is more obfuscating than illuminating. You might as well argue that you want add crypto to DNA because green is your favorite color.

Yes I base the hypothesis on the simple fact of the shape. I am just reading about genetics now. Again with the simple fact that some guy in the 1990’s mapped the genetic code.

I understand that it is a complex and unlikely task. But I am less concerned if it is impossible than the fact I want to test it with my ideas. Like Swanson said why aren’t x-rays boring? I would test 10 thousand x-rays if it had the potential to find the shape of DNA.

When DNA divides does it duplicate or does it combine with other DNA? I thought RNA was just the instructions to the DNA.

I know I can’t say the Caesar cipher will explain there mutation of a cell. But DNA still has protocols that describe how it functions. And geometric models still apply. Do remember when you could donate CPU cycles to aid in computational protein folding?

Never not look for a pattern just because a pattern doesn’t seem possible. It is like not chasing the girl because she is too hot. If there is no risk there is no reward. Again back to taking hundreds of x-rays not knowing if you are going to find anything if it evens exists.

41 minutes ago, KJW said:

I think if biology does connect to the prime number sequence, it would be due to the sieve of Eratosthenes. I understand that cicadas actually do this.

I’ll have to look it up.

I believe that if you use alternative coordinate systems like the log spiral or maybe your idea to use the sieve new patterns are shown. How many functions like circular functions have we got patterns from graphing them?

Which leads me to the question why were they testing for a double helix in the first place?

The central concept of DNA, I think even more significant than the genetic code, is that each DNA-base hydrogen-bonds to its complementary DNA-base. Adenine (A) hydrogen-bonds to thymine (T), cytosine (C) hydrogen-bonds to guanine (G). Adenine and guanine are purine bases, thymine and cytosine are pyrimidine bases. Note that in each case a purine base hydrogen-bonds to a pyrimidine base to maintain the correct separation between the two strands of the double-helix. Thus, the two strands of the double-helix have complementary DNA-base sequences (actually also reversed because the two strands are opposite in direction). This is the basis of DNA replication. The hydrogen-bonding between complementary DNA-base pairs is also the basis of transcription.

DNA replication:

Edited 2 hours ago2 hr by KJW