Dims

Wiki says human organism consists on 220-230 cell types. Is there any database or online reference, which contains a "genealogy tree" of these types and statistics? I.e. so it is said about each cell type from which one it origins and which one produces when maturing? Partially this information is in wiki, for example it is said there, that embryoblast derives from blastocyst and gives rise to epiblasts and hypoblasts. Unfortunately, this information is highly incomplete in Wiki. For example, I can't track genesis to neuroblasts. Besides tree I am interested in cell statistics, for example, how many cells of the type body contains at which life stages, how fast cells divide, how long do they live, what is mutation rate in them and etc. Is this information secret or paid?

So, where does pigment applied to the hair on your picture?

I have noticed that if single black hair is pulled out from skin by pincers, it appears to be white near the thick root. I.e. the black color is appearing far frome the hair root. Does this mean that coloring pigment is generated far from the place, where hair material itself is generated? Or this means that pigment undergoes some sort of maturation during the grow? Thanks.

Do antigen-binding molecules with weak affinity exist and well-studied? Weak antibodies, weak receptors? Where I can read about them?

Does the existence of nanobacteria is established? Do their role in some deseases already proved? Thanks.

Ho! Is it possible to define function by-table, for example f(2)=3, f(5)=4? It is clear for separate values, i.e. lambda 2.3 and lambda 5.4, right? But how to combine these? Thanks.

How can I get c? It will be infinity in that formula. And what is permittivity applying to a metal?

No, it cant be so. If subatomic particles would have definite parameters, then we could determine them indirectly. But we can't. Several fact say, that there are not us, who don't know particle parameters,but it is nature itself, who does not know it. It seems to me, that it should be clear just on phylosophical basis. Look. We are going deeper and deeper in our researching nature. Sooner or later we should come to decomposing the existance itself. We should come to level, at wich we see everything. What is existance? It is some relation with object and subject, or between two objects. One exists for another means, that some property of one is true for another. But the world is material. So, this relation should be materialized. And it is materialized: any relation is interaction. If there is no interaction, then it should be no relation. Now, in QM we came to this state of knowledge. We see the material of relations itselfes. The interactions are mediated with some particles. So, the relations also. The only sense of state is what result it can give in interaction. But don't forget, that unmeasurability is principal. Some things can not be measured neither directly nor indirectly, neither now, nor later. Any suggestions about such things are neither useful nor harmful and etc. Can you offer some sense in what such things are EXIST?

The quantum behavior could not be deterministic by the following reasoning. First: there are quantum correlations. I.e. QM requires, that some sort of magic coins should exsist. The main property of these coins is that they always fall out equal. Second: there is a limit on speed of infromation spreading. This implyies, that one coin can not inform another how to fall. Third: there are Bell's inequations, which state, that coins also cannot predecide, how to fall. So, the only decision, compatible with all three points is that the fall out is non-local true-random event. I.e. all possible ways of information flow are closed by experiment-verified theories, except one: information birth in both coins.

Is it possible to calculate this value somehow? Does inductance play role here? Or is it just measured directly? Can one read the setup of experiment?

I agree. The main difference between modern spacetime and old aether is that latter is 3-dimensional, while first is 4-dimensional. If you mathematically constrcut a 4-dimensional medium of any kind, you will see, that it differs from normal medium. The main reason of this is that one get to another areas of this object with time. Maybe you can't MOVE across this medium because it can have invariant, i.e. independant of moving, properties. This difference is big, but I treat it as not principal, because it is simply adding one dimension.

The spacetime IS something. It has properties and etc, as you said. The mathematical construct was never pretend to be a spacetime, the mathematical construct is a mind MODEL of spacetime. There are no principal differences between modern spacetime and old aether. The differences are particular, i.e. the specific properties of the thing named spacetime and the properties of the thing, named aether, are different. Old aether was a gas, or liquid, allowing one to describe every physic law via the laws of hydro- or aero- dynamics. These attempts were failed. Modern spacetime has no (or nearly no) liguid or gas properties.

But what do you mean by subset? The oweral set af cases, including large accelerations and gravitational fields, described by GR. The subset of this set, where accelerations and/or gravitational fields are not large, described by SR. In this sense, the SR is a subset of GR.

So what is the speed of light in copper?

But what is the speed of light in copper? I mean the following. Let us have short circuited copper wire 1 meter length. Then we induce some current at first place of that wire. After what time the current (in ampers) at other edge will be at least 2/3 of that at another?

Hi! What is the speed of electric flow? I mean not a speed of electron drift, but a speed of spreading of electric perturbation over normal metallic wire? Can you explain prove your answer or give some links to experimental data? Thanks.

But every measurement is inherently random. For example, if we have 45 degree polarized photon, then it will randomly bypass vertical polarizer or stop. I. e. the answer for the question "is it 90 degree polarized or 0 degree" is inherent random. But we CAN entangle two photons.

I heard, that normal, even coherent, light is the state where number of photons is undefined. So it is impossible to treat light as probability of photon presence as we treat it with electron.

It is said, that entanglement of two particles can make them expose correlated results of measured observable. For example, we can entangle two electrons to have contrary oriented spins. Also we can entangle them to have spins co-oriented. We can entangle other observables, not only a spin. The question is can we entagle time also? For example, can we entangle two nuclei to decay simultaneously? Or can we make them to decay at specific moments? If we can, then how this time-relation entanglement will correspond with special relativity with it's relativism of a time?

Hi! Excuse my English. Are there deseases, which are known to be caused by hyperfunction of immunological tolerance? It seems to me, that these deseases should have two attributes: 1) they should be immunodeficiencies 2) they should have antigen specificity So, AIDS is not hypertolerance, because it has not specificity (immunity lack concern with ALL antigens) If there are not such deseases, then may the cancer be one of the case?

There is protein, which is called carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA). It is a marker of some oncological deseases. Normally it exists only in antenatal organisms. My question is: what is the mechanism of producing this protein in the case of canser? Who produces it? Are this cancer cells, who do this? Or some other organism systems do this in response to cancer?

Hi! Is it possible to somehow mark communicating immune cells? I'v read, that immune cells are communicating with each other, including communications while close contact. And that it is some kind of network of such communications. Are there some methods to trace this communication network with some cellular marks? For example, may be it is possible to make some radioactive mark, that trasfers from one cell to another when contacting. Or may be it is possible to invent some kind of low activity virus, that infect cells only when they are contacting and does not kill them, but only marking? Thank you and excuse my English!

Hi! And excuse my English. I'v read, that some phagocytes take foreign antigenes and present them to T-cells. But what for? If phagocyte has antigenes to present, then antigene source is already eaten and not dangerous. Is it reasonable? It comes out, that the role of phagocyte is to sometimes preventive eat every cell only to check if it is bad? Is it so? Or may be these phagocytes don't completely eat antigene source, but only scrape antigenes from the source? Is it can be so? Do antigenes regenerate on the source surface? Thanx.