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 October 6Oct 6 by KJW

13 hours ago, Trurl said:

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.

It is not a matter of feasibility. It is a matter of mushing together random concepts without providing any idea how they might be linked. It is like saying I want to introduce the concept of a recursive algorithm into a pencil.

And as to how the genetic code works, as KJW mentioned, the complementary bonding is the key. First the genetic code is well known:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_code

And second, as to how a triplet is linked to an amino acid, that is done by loading tRNA, which have the triplet corresponding to the code. In this image you see the mRNA and the incoming tRNA at a ribosome. I.e. the code is not realized on the DNA level, but ultimately at the ribosome and requires the interplay between mRNA (as template, but derived from DNA) tRNA and the ribosome. I.e. the DNA and its structure basically play no role here anymore. You can, for example change the genetic code by introducing tRNA that have a different (or even artificial) amino acid coupled to a given tRNA. The code is basically all in the sequence.

17 hours ago, Trurl said:

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?

No, the inability for massive particles to travel at light speed is fundamental. The energy is a function of speed and the equation diverges at v = c. Regardless of how much energy you have, the speed will be less than c, in any frame of reference.

17 hours ago, Trurl said:

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?

I don’t know what you mean by “build particles”

We use accelerators to collide particles and see if we can (briefly) form other particles, but “build” carries the connotation of a deliberate fabrication rather than an (often very unlikely) event happening at random. IOW, you build a house. You don’t dump a bunch of building materials together, hoping that occasionally you get something that’s structurally sound with living space in it.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

You don’t dump a bunch of building materials together, hoping that occasionally you get something that’s structurally sound with living space in it.

If that happened I would call it an emergent phenomenon.

😄

On 10/6/2026 at 1:39 PM, CharonY said:

It is not a matter of feasibility. It is a matter of mushing together random concepts without providing any idea how they might be linked. It is like saying I want to introduce the concept of a recursive algorithm into a pencil.

Are they not linked. There is a whole field of applying computational mathematics to biology. This is not just me saying I want to relate crypto to bio. Steve Wolfram wrote about bio informatics and seeing what added to a disease would cure that disease over time.

You are right I am naive to think I can find codes in genetics without knowing genetics. But my goal is to learn about genetics and see if any of my ideas apply. I think the individual’s genome is billions of markers. That is why you have to have crypto like computational mathematics.

You guys definitely know more biology than me. But don’t think enough about genetics is known that there wouldn’t be unknown patterns.

And let’s hope AI doesn’t find these patterns. Imagine the misuse of this information.

13 hours ago, Trurl said:

Are they not linked. There is a whole field of applying computational mathematics to biology. This is not just me saying I want to relate crypto to bio. Steve Wolfram wrote about bio informatics and seeing what added to a disease would cure that disease over time.

What you propose is not computational biology (which is a field). You said you wanted to add crypto to genetics because somehow DNA is a helix and there is a genetic code. And as mentioned, the links you tried to make in terms of genetic code and helical shape does not exist. And there was no explanation what elements of crypto you envisioned. Just because there are fields like computation biology or bioinformatics, it does not mean that you just mushing terms makes something real.

If I put a blender on my head, I am not a Borg.

13 hours ago, Trurl said:

You guys definitely know more biology than me. But don’t think enough about genetics is known that there wouldn’t be unknown patterns.

The patterns are known to a significant degree, but there are multiple levels with open questions. However, the pattern, or sequence is probably the easiest problem, we had a lot of algorithms to look into those, including machine learning approaches. The bigger challenge is the functional characterization and at least so far, AI has been pretty bad at it. The reason is because we lack the biological information which currently is only provided by experiments, which is a rate-limiting step. So staring at the sequence won't yield much additional information regardless what you throw at it (there are ideas to address it, which basically boil down to add more data, but I am highly skeptical based on past evidence).

7 hours ago, CharonY said:

The patterns are known to a significant degree, but there are multiple levels with open questions. However, the pattern, or sequence is probably the easiest problem, we had a lot of algorithms to look into those, including machine learning approaches. The bigger challenge is the functional characterization and at least so far, AI has been pretty bad at it. The reason is because we lack the biological information which currently is only provided by experiments, which is a rate-limiting step. So staring at the sequence won't yield much additional information regardless what you throw at it (there are ideas to address it, which basically boil down to add more data, but I am highly skeptical based on past evidence)

Well I accept the critique that cryptography is not a direct relation to the biology of genes.

But how do you think AI is going to approach the subject? I mean like Othello board game the AI starts drawing unpredictable.

I can’t experiment with DNA. I am not in a lab. I’m not even a biologist. I’m not even a mathematician. I just want to learn genetics and apply patterns to it.

A cipher in an unknown language or unknown protocol is impossible to decipher. But patterns occur everywhere.

I only want to apply my ideas and look for patterns. My basis is code patterns and mathematics relate to biological patterns. After all isn’t the shape of the DNA a known geometric shape any way.

You can say it is intentionally designed that way. Or it evolved that way to program how life grows.

But if it was designed I think there will be clear patterns to be discovered. If evolved patterns will exist. But I think it will show cells form the organism by a collective design.

4 hours ago, Trurl said:

I only want to apply my ideas and look for patterns. My basis is code patterns and mathematics relate to biological patterns. After all isn’t the shape of the DNA a known geometric shape any way.

Hmmm, one thing I don't think you grasp is that although DNA is a store of information, the manifestation of that information in living organisms is largely chemistry. Among other things, DNA encodes information that is used to produce proteins called enzymes that catalyse chemical reactions necessary for life. That is, understanding the patterns that occur in a base sequence of DNA ultimately requires an understanding of the chemical reactions being catalysed by the corresponding enzymes. And while there is a connection between the base sequences of DNA and the chemical reactions being catalysed, this connection contains an arbitrary element that prevents the connection being pure in a mathematical sense. This arbitrary element is the genetic code, the correspondence between the triplet codons of the DNA and the amino acids of the proteins. This correspondence is the result of a set of aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases that attach specific amino acids to specific tRNAs. Actually, the genetic code is not entirely arbitrary because it also relies on chemistry and evolved optimisations.

The following is a representation of the genetic code that allows direct inspection of the relationship between the triplet codons (of mRNA) and chemical structure of the corresponding amino acids:

Thanks KJW for the detailed representation.

You must admit it does look like a crypto scheme.

There is a lot of chemistry there. And I agree in makes finding a pattern a challenge. I understand why you guys emphasize the difficulty.

I’m not saying I can crack this genetic code by solving this. I would start with the simple and build from there

I am still reading the book and I don’t know why they choose the helix shape in the first place. There were dozens of people working together. I would start by taking something simply, yet maybe not described mathematically.

I was interested in computational mathematics. They process data for patterns. They take what the scientists say and find what it means. I don’t know if AI will eventually replace them. But there are some patterns only people can find.

This is why I think crypto applies to genetics:

Where is the hidden code? The RNA?

We see what is chemically involved. We have public keys. We see the results. But we don’t know the processing. It is a hash of chemistry.

We have shape and protocols of the process. And math pretty much helps to describe every science field we have.

I don’t think it will be solved with a single solution. But one you look at individual people and see them there is ciphers hidden by chemistry and quantity of data.

I am enrolled in a million person study than compares genome to medical records. They have discovered hundreds of medical markers by comparison of the millions.

I wish I knew how this comparison was done. But they must have supper computers and SI.

21 hours ago, Trurl said:

You must admit it does look like a crypto scheme.

I think, and I am not saying that to be mean, this only looks that way if you have only a very superficial understanding of these terms. Very superficially, any two things can look kind of alike, if you are view of them are very hazy.

21 hours ago, Trurl said:

Where is the hidden code? The RNA?

Again, the code is not hidden. And if you want to highlight one specific piece, it would be tRNA. I invite you to go to wikipedia and read them. It is simply a molecule that has three bases on one part of it and carries the corresponding amino acid on the other, as outlined a few times already in this thread.

21 hours ago, Trurl said:

We see what is chemically involved. We have public keys. We see the results. But we don’t know the processing. It is a hash of chemistry.

We know the processing really well, and there are studies up on studies showing how it works. We have manipulated the system to a large degree, too.

On 10/12/2026 at 8:18 PM, CharonY said:

Again, the code is not hidden.

The code is hidden in plain site. All math models are a representation.

I googled it and found representations of crypto based on genetics and a representation of the complexity of genetics of a cipher.

Answers in Genesis

Beyond Chance: A Cryptographic Analysis of the Origins of...

These findings provide quantitative evidence that spontaneous formation of functional genomes through undirected processes is infeasible.

I used the google as a last resort. I would rather discuss it on SFN first. This article also comments on the origin of life. There is so much complexity that it could evolve fast enough. That is not my argument. I am only looking for patterns in genetics. Where it all comes from is individual’s beliefs.

Somewhere I came across a different site that mentioned hiding information in a genetic data. Not the encryption of genetic data but basing the crypto algorithm on actual biological data.

Biohacking Village

Biohacking Village — Healthier Tech for Healthier People

The Biohacking Village at DEF CON — collaborating for cybersecurity safety and innovation in healthcare since 2014. Medical device security, CVD, labs & more.

https://villageb.io/ResourceDetail?id=11

Do not be deterred if the first link’s paper is trying to say there is not enough time for different species to evolve.

I am no biologist but I say these changes in the DNA would make better sense if they occurred instantly. To me this is where the patterns would come from. Billions of variations would be worthless if it took millions of years to change.

But I think this is where patterns come in. You wouldn’t have to change every combination to make changes.

The billions of variations just make us unique. We may be similar but in our AES encryption brute force is needed to describe us. We may have genes that change rapidly but our ability to describe them is why the article describes brute force.

3 hours ago, Trurl said:

I am no biologist but I say these changes in the DNA would make better sense if they occurred instantly. To me this is where the patterns would come from. Billions of variations would be worthless if it took millions of years to change.

Well, this then makes the whole discussion meaningless, you know that right? Because effectively you refuse to understand what is real and instead make up something that for some reasons makes sense to you. Unfortunately this also means that the only person for which the discussion makes sense is yourself.