WARNING:
JavaScript is turned OFF. None of the links on this concept map will
work until it is reactivated.
If you need help turning JavaScript On, click here.
This Concept Map, created with IHMC CmapTools, has information related to: Two models for cell membrane.cmap, TWO MODELS FOR CELL MEMBRANE AS JOSEPHSON JUNCTION 2. In the first model the assumption is that cell membrane is near to vacuum extremal for some neu- rons. This is not the only possibility. a) Classical Z^0 field would be present and effective membrane potential would contain Z^0 con- tribution raising the energy of Josephson photons to visible and UV range corresponding to ener- gies of bio-photons. b) Without this assumption one cannot explain biophotons as decay products of dark photons of EEG since for far from vacuum extremals Josephson energy would correspond to ZeV_em and would be just above the thermal energy c) Near extremal property also implies that the effective resting potentials associated with span a range which can be wider than octave required by the realization of music metaphor in the model of EEG in the sense that even the music scale has analog as spect- rum of Josephson energies. d) The assumption vulnerable to criticism is that for near vacuum extremals the value of Weinberg angle is by about factor 1/10 smaller than far from vacuum extremals. It is possible to get rid of this restriction. The assumption about classical Z^0 fields is how- ever questionable since it seems that classical Z^0 and W fields should vanish at string world sheets at least above weak scale which is however scaled up for large values of h_eff., TWO MODELS FOR CELL MEMBRANE AS JOSEPHSON JUNCTION 1. Model for cell membrane as Jo- sephson junction has some problems. a) EEG would correspond to dark photons with Josephson energy E_J=ZeV and frequency characte- rized by h_eff. They would decay to bio-photons, which are ordinary photons with energies in visible and UV range. Problem: E_J is roughly 50 times smaller than bio- photon energy. b) One would expect that metabo- lic energy quantum with nominal value of e ≈.5 eV is of the same order of magnitude as bio-photon energies. Problem: e is about ten times higher. c) Thermodynamical picture about cell membrane and ADP→ATP pro- cess explains the large value of e in terms of chemical potential difference characterizing the difference of proton concentra- tions for interior and exterior of cell. This purely thermodynamical description can be criticized. Of course, the vision about cell mem- brane as Josephson junction (or its microscopic variant treating transmembrane proteins as Jo- sephson junctions) require gene- ralization of thermodynamical approach. I have made two proposals to overcome these problems., TWO MODELS FOR CELL MEMBRANE AS JOSEPHSON JUNCTION 3. Second model relies on gene- ralization of Josephson junc- tion to allow different cyclotron energies at the two sides of the the membrane. a) The energy difference for particles at different sides of membrane contains besides ordinary Josephson energy also a contribution from difference of cyclotron energies. This raises the scale to the energy scale of biophotons and allows alsoconsistent model for the metabolic energy quantum of nominal value .5 eV and con- siderabily higher than ordinary Josephson energy. b) This model allows also to generalize the thermodynami- cal model of cell membrane to its quantal "square root" so with Boltzmann weights repla- ced with their complex square roots with phase expressed as different of total energy. Chemi- cal potentials are replaced with differences of cyclotron energies which are universal and in the energy range of biophotons. c) Second model can be modi- fied also to the needs of the first model. d) It must be emphasized that model is microscopic: one consi- ders transmembrane proteins as generalized Josephson junc- tions., TWO MODELS FOR CELL MEMBRANE AS JOSEPHSON JUNCTION 4. Which model is correct? Or is their hybrid nearer to reality? a) A justification for classical Z^0 fields could come from lar- ge parity breaking effects in living matter (chiral selection). b) The string world sheets and partonic two surfaces carrying induced spinors can carry both classical em and Z^0 fields but not W fields. Above weak scale classical Z^0 field must vanish and this means. But what about shorter scales. For dark matter hierarchy weak scales are scaled up by h_eff/h so that one cannot exclude classical Z^0 fields for string world sheets. c) For proton the contribution of classical Z^0 field to the Joseph- son energy is small so that it seems that classical Z^0 field alo- ne cannot give correct metabolic energy quantum. Hence only second model or hybrid of them can work. The crucial question is whether the successful model for color qualia can be reformu- lated without Z^0 fields.
