Novel Idea on the Origin of Life

[jedishrfu]

Novel idea on the origin of life based on a system self organizing to dissipate energy as efficiently as possible:

http://www.businessinsider.com/physicist-has-a-groundbreaking-idea-about-why-life-exists-2016-1?amp

 

[DrClaude]

There was already a (short) thread concerning that paper:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/a-new-thermodynamic-theory-of-life.734211/#post-4637763

 

[russ_watters]

This sounds overmathed to me, based on two dubious starting assumptions. To put a finer point on it: humans are terribly inefficient users of energy - and so what?

 

[zoobyshoe]

humans are terribly inefficient users of energy

You mean the human body?

 

[russ_watters]

You mean the human body?

Yes, them too.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Yes, them too.

OK. I'm baffled by your post. In the sense that, I don't understand what you were trying to say.

 

[russ_watters]

OK. I'm baffled by your post. In the sense that, I don't understand what you were trying to say.

To be perfectly frank, I'm not sure what to do with that. Sorry.

 

[zoobyshoe]

This sounds overmathed to me,

What does "overmathed" mean?

based on two dubious starting assumptions.

Which are?

To put a finer point on it: humans are terribly inefficient users of energy -

Wouldn't that fact support the theory?

and so what?

"So what?' that humans are terribly inefficient users of energy, or "so what?" to the whole theory?[/QUOTE]

 

[DaveC426913]

To put a finer point on it: humans are terribly inefficient users of energy - and so what?

Isn't that the point behind the article?

You say "users of energy", but that concentrates on the useful portion - as in: getting something done. If life turns potential chemical energy into waste heat, yet accomplishes very little in the process, that's actually a pretty good entropy generator, is it not?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Isn't that the point behind the article?

You say "users of energy", but that concentrates on the useful portion - as in: getting something done. If life turns potential chemical energy into waste heat, yet accomplishes very little in the process, that's actually a pretty good entropy generator, is it not?

Yes, that's the way I read the article as well.

 

[russ_watters]

What does "overmathed" mean?

You can use math to say anything, but that doesn't mean the math is meaningful. I think this person did a lot of math that led to a conclusion that doesn't have anything to do with reality because it was never based in reality to begin with.

Which are?

The two points that came next:

Wouldn't that fact support the theory?

No: the premise was that life seeks efficiency. Humans are highly evolved and terribly inefficient, nearly the opposite of his assumption.

"So what?' that humans are terribly inefficient users of energy, or "so what?" to the whole theory?

"So what?" as in why does he think that efficient use of energy has anything to do with anything. He seems to be pulling both of those premises out of thin air and they appear completely unconnected with reality to me.

 

[DaveC426913]

Look at a hypothetical 30,000 foot scenario of human action.

A young, molten Earth cools until its surface crusts over, and its internal heat and volatile gasses leech out somewhat slowly after that. Humans show up and crack the surface, churning up the underbelly, exposing heat and gasses to the surface where they can be lost much more rapidly than any non-living process.

 

[DaveC426913]

why does he think that efficient use of energy has anything to do with anything.

Does he mean efficient use of energy, or efficient dissipation of energy?

 

[russ_watters]

Isn't that the point behind the article?

You say "users of energy", but that concentrates on the useful portion - as in: getting something done. If life turns potential chemical energy into waste heat, yet accomplishes very little in the process, that's actually a pretty good entropy generator, is it not?
[separate post]
Does he mean efficient use of energy, or efficient dissipation of energy?

I found the wording of the article confusing and maybe that's part of the issue here, but the way I see it, it doesn't work either way. Life is neither an efficient way to use energy or an efficient way to dissipate (waste) energy. [edit] And I see no reason why life should be driven by either.

 

[zoobyshoe]

You can use math to say anything, but that doesn't mean the math is meaningful. I think this person did a lot of math that led to a conclusion that doesn't have anything to do with reality because it was never based in reality to begin with.

OK. I agree that's perfectly possible.

The two points that came next:

No: the premise was that life seeks efficiency. Humans are highly evolved and terribly inefficient, nearly the opposite of his assumption.

"So what?" as in why does he think that efficient use of energy has anything to do with anything. He seems to be pulling both of those premises out of thin air and they appear completely unconnected with reality to me.

I think you concentrated on "efficiency" too much and missed the point about life being efficient at wasting energy, that is: at not using it efficiently. In other words, he's proposing that things adopt particular arrangements in order to be less efficient.

 

[DaveC426913]

I found the wording of the article confusing and maybe that's part of the issue here

Agreed. Which forces us to try to read between the lines.

Life is neither an efficient way to use energy or an efficient way to dissipate (waste) energy. [edit]

Well, as opposed to what? Is non-life better at either of those things? Kind of hard to say, and the article is not a lot of help there.

And I see no reason why life should be driven by either.

Agreed. Not sure how he links it to an evolutionary driver.

 

[DaveC426913]

This might be a case of the article poorly representing the proposal. The scientist might not have skipped over quite so many steps in the logic.

 

[russ_watters]

I think you concentrated on "efficiency" too much and missed the point about life being efficient at wasting energy, that is: at not using it efficiently. In other words, he's proposing that things adopt particular arrangements in order to be less efficient.

Well, as opposed to what? Is non-life better at either of those things?

Life is not effective at either. From the (news) article.

...when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that, under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life.

“You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant,” England said.

So, a plant's "key physical attribute" is turning sunlight into waste heat -- and it is good at that? You know what's better at it? A rock.

 

[DaveC426913]

Life is not effective at either. From the (news) article.

So, a plant's "key physical attribute" is turning sunlight into waste heat -- and it is good at that? You know what's better at it? A rock.

Yeah. I'd like him to spell that out a little better.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Life is not effective at either. From the (news) article.

So, a plant's "key physical attribute" is turning sunlight into waste heat -- and it is good at that? You know what's better at it? A rock.

His contention is that physics says it isn't:

From the standpoint of physics, there is one essential difference between living things and inanimate clumps of carbon atoms: The former tend to be much better at capturing energy from their environment and dissipating that energy as heat.

 

[russ_watters]

His contention is that physics says it isn't:

He's flat out wrong. Energy turning into waste heat is something that happens on its own. Thermodynamics is the science/engineering of getting in the way of that.

 

[DaveC426913]

"...much better at capturing energy from their environment and dissipating that energy as heat..."

This quote makes a lot more sense if you consider stored chemical energy.

 

[russ_watters]

This quote makes a lot more sense if you consider stored chemical energy.

What stored chemical energy? The energy stored by plants from sunlight? He specifically cited the sun as such a primary energy source. Another would be a waterfall. These things instantly turn all of the energy they provide into lower grade waste heat. A plant stores the solar energy as chemical energy, thereby not turning it into waste heat. It does exactly the opposite of what he says it should be doing. A hydroelectric dam captures the energy of the waterfall and allows us to use it for other things before it finally gets released as waste heat (unless we also store it as another form of energy).

 

[russ_watters]

What does "overmathed" mean?

I've invented another new term for this: philosomath.

 

[DaveC426913]

His contention is that physics says it isn't:

What stored chemical energy? The energy stored by plants from sunlight? He specifically cited the sun as such a primary energy source. Another would be a waterfall. These things instantly turn all of the energy they provide into lower grade waste heat. A plant stores the solar energy as chemical energy, thereby not turning it into waste heat. It does exactly the opposite of what he says it should be doing. A hydroelectric dam captures the energy of the waterfall and allows us to use it for other things before it finally gets released as waste heat (unless we also store it as another form of energy).

No. I mean using solar energy to drive the engine that extracts useful chemical potential energy from the environment and turns it into such things as CO₂.

(OK well, nevermind the fact that plants also produce oxygen, which is used in lots of other ways, but still...)

 

[russ_watters]

No. I mean using solar energy to drive the engine that extracts useful chemical potential energy from the environment and turns it into such things as CO₂.

I'm not following -- as far as I know, plants extract solar energy from the environment and only use chemicals as raw materials for storing that energy. I don't see how that connects to what you quoted.

 

[zoobyshoe]

A plant stores the solar energy as chemical energy, thereby not turning it into waste heat. It does exactly the opposite of what he says it should be doing.

I think, though I'm not sure, that his answer to your objection would be that the amount of energy that gets stored in the plant is very much less than the amount that has been received and shed by it in the process of storing what it stores. Consider your body temperature at this moment: how much energy have you expended to maintain that temperature (you're constantly shedding heat, after all)? Some very small part of the work the environment has done on you is stored in your mass, but most of it has been shed by you in the various ways people dissipate energy.

His contention is that your body does that better than a rock: it absorbs more and sheds more. I have no idea if that's true, but, since rocks don't have to eat, or do anything in particular to remain rocks, it wouldn't surprise me that animate things use more energy than inanimate ones.

 

[collinsmark]

Perhaps what we should consider is a thought experiment:

Consider two terrariums. Each terrarium is square with a side of 10 km, and some arbitrary height. Both terrariums are isolated from their respective surroundings, however: Both are allowed equal amounts of sunlight energy per day. And both are allowed equal amounts of heat energy per day to escape.

One terrarium is filled with soil, water, air, bacteria, trees, daisies, bees, wombats and llamas (including some dead trees, dead bees, dead wombats, etc). The other terrarium is filled with only rocks, air and water.

Over the course of 2000 years (long enough time period to account for trees' longevity, rotting time, etc., over several generations) which terrarium is warmer?

[Edit: I didn't specify whether light energy (such as escaping, reflected sunlight) was the same thing as heat energy. I suspect the distinction is paramount to the correct answer. Suppose we say that reflected, escaping sunlight counts as escaping heat energy. What's the answer in that case? And if reflected sunlight does not count toward escaping heat energy, what's the answer then?]

[Second edit: And as a corollary, which terrarium is better at converting the sunlight's relatively high frequency photons -- peak intensity around the green part of the visible spectrum -- to lower frequency photons such as infrared and below? (You may consider reflected light when answering.)]

 

[collinsmark]

As a followup to my last post, it may be useful to consider that from a quantum perspective, a set of ten 5000 nm photons is associated with more entropy than a set of one 500 nm photon, even though both sets have the same energy.

Ignoring reflections, when a rock absorbs and radiates energy it does so in a pretty predicable fashion. In the morning, when a rocks are exposed to sunlight, a black rock will absorb more sunlight and heat up quicker than a grey rock. But after dusk, that black rock will emit electromagnetic radiation more quickly than the grey rock and thus cool down more quickly. (Black bodies not only absorb energy at a higher rate, but they also emit energy at a higher rate).

But can we say the same about the ficus tree? It's not quite so simple. It's more complicated for the ficus tree because in the daytime, some of that sunlight changes the tree's chemistry rather than heating it up, and in the nighttime the tree might emit energy from continued chemical reactions instead of simply cooling down. Ficus trees don't fully apply to black body radiation models.

So going back to our thought experiment, consider the energy exiting each terrarium system. Even if the total energy exiting each system is identical on average, is there a difference in the average photon wavelengths? Does that play a part in all of this*?

*Specifically, how that relates to entropy leaving each system.

 

[zoobyshoe]

So, you have two bank accounts. Every day the same amount is deposited in each, and every day the same amount is withdrawn from each. Assuming the withdrawals equal the deposits, both accounts end up with whatever they had when you started. So, whichever was warmer when you started will be the warmer when you end.

England, though, is saying one system could change to both receive and pay out more than the other. In other words: a proper gedanken can't limit what the "bio" area takes in and puts out, because that pre-emptively prevents the very thing he claims will happen: greater intake and exhaust. One of his contentions is that living things replicate so that yet more energy can be taken in and shed. So, you also couldn't contain the "bio" area, because that would prevent the inhabitants from replicating beyond a certain point. The gedanken has to be designed so that both terrariums are allowed to take in and exhaust as much energy as they "want" and to expand their area if they need to. I think the 2000 year result is obvious.