Enzyme reactions are puzzling. Sometimes they react and sometimes they don’t. Reactions in a laboratory are different from reactions in vivo. The application of heat seems to speed up reactions. Sometimes acidity affects the reaction rate.
Enzyme reactions are puzzling:
- Sometimes they react and sometimes they don’t.
- Reactions in a laboratory are different from reactions in vivo.
- The application of heat seems to speed up reactions.
- Sometimes acidity affects the reaction rate.
- The addition of a catalyst enables a reaction without affecting the catalyst
Hypothesised mechanisms include receptors, binding sites and catalysts but no description of their mechanisms is given in terms of any sort of fundamental laws; what are receptors made of for example?
For two molecules to bind together some long range attractive force is necessary to bring them near to each other along with sufficient energy to overcome some sort of potential energy barrier.
For a catalyst to work we again need some sort of long range influence or even energy exchange.
Mainstream theory of kinetic gases has molecules bumping into each other to supply the movement and energy but this doesn’t explain all the effects seen. Van der Waals forces arise from the fixed properties of the atomic structure and should not be varying with the environment.
Hypothesis:
Bio-molecules contain hexagonal ring structures which promote the construction of electromagnetic ring vortices. These act both as energy accumulators and magnetic dipoles and add an extra layer of complexity to molecular interaction.
Magnetic forces exert long range attraction, pulling molecules together and orienting them correctly. The potential barrier is overcome and the whole arrangement settles to a new, stable, low-energy state. There is likely some surplus energy now and this simply diffuses away into the general vortex matrix as ‘heat’ or maybe transduces to infrared light.
The application of heat to the system is a way of adding energy to these ring vortices and will speed up reactions in general. A catalyst is a way of introducing both extra energy and additional attractive forces into the reaction. Energy accumulates on the ring vortices of the catalyst and is used for the reaction. However, the molecule stays intact and the catalyst is not physically depleted but will continue to accumulate energy, to re-fuel for the next interaction.
Energy accumulation is in part from vortex transfer (heat), in part from infrared absorption and in part from the absorption of solar neutrinos. Neutrino density increases by a huge factor during eclipses and so the effects seen by Shnoll and Piccardi are now to be commonly expected; how else to explain these? Stirring a solution is a way of adding extra vortex energy by kinetic means.
If the body or cell can control energy input to the reaction then the speed and possibly the ‘nature’ of the reaction can be controlled on a highly localised basis.
This scheme adds an extra layer of complexity to the Van der Waals forces that is independent of such forces, decoupled from the atomic structure and whose strength varies over time according to both ambient conditions and cosmic cycles. The addition of magnetic dipoles seems to be an adequate explanation for the mechanism of the various receptors, inhibitors etc. and the variability of results according to environmental conditions.
If fundamental biological activity is affected by phases of the moon then what are the implications for human health? How does the body compensate for this?
Implications for ‘The Scientific Method’
Biologists have made certain observations then and managed to deduce that some structure they call a ‘receptor’ is somehow responsible and they have produced various classes of receptors and reaction types based upon this theory. They can’t describe a receptor in terms of basic physics and have no direct evidence for these entities, just observations of the assumed effects.
Nevertheless, it seems that some science can be done and conclusions can be drawn as the ‘receptor model’ is largely correct. It isn’t necessary to prove the ‘existence’ or ‘nature’ of the receptors if the observations conform to a consistent and predictable pattern.
Those in the field of biology can be forgiven in this instance for not describing their observations in terms of basic physics, as ‘basic physics’ is inadequate in this respect and that is the job of the physicists.