Due to the mechanical nature of metabolic processes in cells, specific processes should generate discrete types of “sound”/vibrations.
We should be able to use “sound” based tools in almost exactly the same way we use electrophysiological tools, except they should have far greater process sensitivity and be able to record against the entire range of cells in an organism.
We could for example measure discrete mitochondrial metabolic processes in a single cell, or derive “brain wave” style system level activity.
A lot of the same problems with electrophysical activity still applies here though, particularly with external “sound” contamination. Can we bandpass with super-ultra-mega-directional microphones well enough to isolate the data we are trying to collect?
Despite the challenge in isolating signals, the breadth of cellular activity should make it a worthwhile thing to at least implement.
It wouldn’t surprise me to find that these vibrations are just as much of a motive force in/between cells as electrochemical gradients appear to be now.
I’m imagining proteins/peptides literally wiggling along processes which have similar “sounds” to transfer between cells, the “synaptic gaps” consisting of something not unlike birdsongs between cells to physically transfer information particles between them.
It’s interesting to imagine that a particular engram is activated by a particular set of physical vibrations, which returns a signal when a “close enough” song is recorded. Sure seems a like it could be the function of calcium waves doesn’t it?
Wouldn’t it be funny if the changes in methylation during stimulation weren’t due to the stimulation source itself, but changes in “sound”/vibration pressure imparted by the stimulation?
We assume that optical gradient forces for example are too small to have a measurable effect at this scale, but what if we are missing some other mechanic that works as a sort of “force multiplier”?
Can you think of any other mechanic which explains why methylation changes seem to be agnostic to the stimulation modality?
I keep thinking about the effective differential between tDCS and tACS for example, and could it be the alternating current is sort of “self crossing” the vibration pressure?
It’s so odd that we constantly talk about rhythmicity of network communications but somehow don’t associate this with “sound”.
In the past I’ve proposed that all extracellular functions (e.g. senses) are derivatives of functions which exist at the cellular level. This conceit seems to fit that conceit amazingly well.
This would even be a consistent mechanic to apply to regulatory and differentiation conceits as well, with metabolic vibrational variations providing the perturbation mechanics that guide the process.
The information system at the organism level is derived from the information system at the cellular level. Assuming the cell is the quanta of “life”, if we devolve past this point, the information system functions in a way that we are not designed to “get”, and if it gets significantly “larger”, we also cannot comprehend it as being similar enough to us to consider it “life”.
It reminds me of how our entire existence is owed to the sliver of matter that exists between fuseable and fissible matter.
Is macromolecular crowding the mechanical trigger for pressure sensitivity in cells/touch and hearing on an organism level? Interestingly, by shaping and guiding macromolecular crowding (with say, compartmented mitochondria), we have a motive force for protein products that also impart allow pretty specific directionality. Imagine actin dynamics for example being largely a product of these localized vibration/compression mechanics?
As per usual, looks like this is kind of being looked at, although it hasn’t really gained much of a foothold yet.
Cells in Living Things Fight Noise with Noise
Genome-wide inference reveals that feedback regulations constrain promoter-dependent transcriptional burst kinetics – Yes, exactly like this!