Should Life Be Considered a Fifth Fundamental Force of Nature?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter fuddywook
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Force Life
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the question of whether life should be considered a fifth fundamental force of nature, exploring the implications of life in relation to existing physical forces. Participants examine the nature of life, its relationship to energy transformation, and the definitions of force within physics.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that life demonstrates a unique efficiency in transforming energy, suggesting it could be considered a separate force from the four known fundamental forces.
  • Others contend that no theoretical framework currently exists to define life as a force, and that existing theories adequately encompass biological phenomena without the need for a fifth force.
  • A participant points out that the term "force" in physics has a specific definition that does not align with the broader concept of life as a motivator.
  • Another viewpoint suggests that while life may not fit the traditional definitions of force, it possesses significant power and influence, potentially warranting a different classification.
  • The concept of negative entropy in relation to life is introduced, questioning whether life exhibits properties that could be interpreted as a form of negentropy.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing opinions on whether life can be classified as a fundamental force, with no consensus reached. Some support the idea of life as a distinct force, while others firmly reject this notion based on current scientific understanding.

Contextual Notes

The discussion reveals limitations in the definitions of force and life, as well as the challenges in reconciling scientific and philosophical perspectives on the nature of life.

fuddywook
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Why is life not included as a separate (fifth) fundamental force of nature? I’ve heard it said that life is more efficient at transforming energy (moving things around) than nuclear energy. This would seem to imply a force that is separate from the other 4. (I’m not necessarily talking about a unifying force, but only a separate one.) If the argument is because other forces are involved in biology, I would debate that basis. The other forces don’t seem to sufficiently explain or make up the force which animates organic matter into life. Besides, the strong nuclear force is involved in the existence of our Earth but that doesn’t mean that another force (gravity) is not also/more present/responsible. If the argument against life being included is that we can’t explain life, then I would also debate that basis. Completely explaining a fundamental force is not required in order to identify it. I believe gravity has yet to be completely explained.

(Gee, I hope this is not a “homework type question”. If so, sorry.)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
fuddywook said:
Why is life not included as a separate (fifth) fundamental force of nature?
Because no one has ever found a theory that describes life as a force. The reason that no one is looking for such a theory is that there's no evidence to support the idea that life doesn't fit into the framework defined by the theories that are already well understood
 
"Force" in physics has a more specific meaning than "something that motivates something." Life would not be a force in the same way that gravity or electromagnetism are.
⚛​
 
fuddywook said:
Why is life not included as a separate (fifth) fundamental force of nature?

In the English language sense of the word it (life) could well be the
most powerful thing there is in the Universe. For example, with well placed lasers
maybe in the future a black hole could be eliminated - even a Quasar!
Life (knowledge derived from consciousness) has a mathematical and causal model of a Quasar, whereas the Quasar does not even know about 'us'.

Information is not a force and has no mass - yet look how powerful it is! (in the normal sense of the word)

Its just people here in this thread are saying its not an actual weak, strong, elecro or gravitational force as in physics defined. Its a bit geeky here sometimes.

Its something else - far more important imho and not properly placed yet - probably because of religeous problems - e.g. life has a soul etc.








God is not totally evil, just an underachiever.
 
Last edited:
This does not meet forum guidelines.
 

Similar threads

Graduate Condensed Matter Physics Explained to a Lay Audience
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Graduate A Question on the TOV Limit: Continuous Forces vs. a Discrete Trigger
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
Undergrad Forces and gravitational time dilation
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Undergrad How Does Beta Decay Relate to the Role of W Bosons in Weak Nuclear Force?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
Graduate Detection of 6th Force of Nature: Zhang & Feng Claims
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Graduate Confusion about gravity and the fundamental forces
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Graduate Can time be the cause of gravity's weakness and nonpolarity?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Atomic displacements, replacements, and radiation damage of structural materials
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Graduate Is the Moon responsible for reducing Earth's entropy and making life possible?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Undergrad Casimir force and the Vacuum Field
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K