The Origin of Life, the relationships between life and Energy

[Daniel Hoffman]

So I have been looking around throughout the physics forum and other sources and still can't seem to find a good general explanation of how Life, and energy are related.
First let me propose some definitions to help further our discussion and clarify what i mean.

Life, in the way it concerns us here would be the chemical processes that culminate together to form a living, functioning organism.
Energy is energy. We know there are different forms and it can't be created or destroyed.
Without energy, life cannot sustain and will eventually become death or the absence of life.

Question 1. Is it possible to measure or estimate the Net energy it takes to sustain an organism? the answer to this question I believe lies within the realm of Metabolism.

Life has been around for billions of years according to our understanding of the fossil records and our understanding of chemical dating.

There had to be an origin of life at sometime and I am trying to understand how the energy from the sun gave rise to complex life.

I think the The Miller–Urey experiment tries to get to this answer. This experiment was done in 1952! Question 2. So what do we know now, after nearly 64 years of scientific progress?

After the origin of life, it slowly evolved into what we have today, highly organized systems. Transferring of one form of energy into another, and eventually creating another life form that continues the process.

I feel that the answer to this question will help us begin to answer my next question. Now bear with me it is a little on the metaphysical side and I am sure many people would believe a lot of explanations to be bogus.

The ancient eastern spiritual practices often mention something called chakra and Prana.

Prana being the general life energy of the entire organism. This i think may be the Net energy I was talking about earlier.
chakra being a particular form of energy at a specific point in the body.

Would modern chemistry and physics be able to explain these ideas in real physical and concrete language?
I have only taken general college physics, chemistry and biology courses. So when we get down to specifics, this is where my knowledge thins. But here is what i am familiar with...

Electrical currents create magnetic currents ( correct me if i am wrong)
Our cells communicate with each other through electrical and chemical processes. It could be argued then that we ourselves create a magnetic field based on our cellular processes.
Question 3 Can we measure this? Have we? Can we control or alter this prana and or chakra, whether it be with our consciousness or with drugs?
Chakra points being in places like you heart or brain.

I hope these questions and background can prompt discussion on how we can go about understanding the relationship between life and energy.

I would really like to keep this discussion more scientifically based than opinion based so please, if you find any discrepancies in my background let me know so we can overcome any confusion .

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Question 1. Is it possible to measure or estimate the Net energy it takes to sustain an organism? the answer to this question I believe lies within the realm of Metabolism.

Most humans in the first world consume 2000-4000 calories per day. A lot of people in the third world survive on under 1600 calories per day.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_food_energy_intake

Cold blooded animals have much lower energy requirements.

Question 2. So what do we know now, after nearly 64 years of scientific progress?

There is some work on how lipids may have formed membranes, but really only hypotheses on how DNA came to be.

 

[Evo]

Most humans in the first world consume 1000-2000 calories per day. A lot of people in the third world survive on under 800 calories per day.

Cold blooded animals have much lower energy requirements.
There is some work on how lipids may have formed membranes, but really only hypotheses on how DNA came to be.

Please post your sources for the above. Thank you. This is not disputing you, although the RDA for calories for adults in the US are much higher, we just need to see where you got this information so that we can read about them.

 

[Evo]

No, Courtney, valid information such as this

http://www.webmd.com/diet/estimated-calorie-requirement

Within a healthy, balanced diet, a man needs around 10,500kJ (2,500Kcal) a day to maintain his weight. For a woman, that figure is around 8,400kJ (2,000Kcal) a day.

http://www.nhs.uk/chq/pages/1126.aspx?categoryid=51

 

[Dr. Courtney]

No, Courtney, valid information such as this

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations is not a valid source of information?

Note, I did not represent the information as recommended calorie intakes, but rather actual calorie intakes.

Get off your high horse.

 

[Daniel Hoffman]

So a calorie is a unit of energy. Our cells do chemical processes that require energy (Calories). So organisms need calories, this we know. We get them from other organisms. which are also Life, which also have a Net energy/ net flow of energy or something like that. <--- this is getting closer to answering the question of whether or not we can measure something like Net energy and get to understanding something metaphysical like prana.

So cold blooded animals, or Poikilotherms, can drop their temperature to below freezing (when i talk about freezing i mean the temp water freezes at) Even though their Net energy levels are very low, they are still alive? Can someone help explain this.
For example, hibernating frogs...

1. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/320428
   J. St‐Pierre and R. G. Boutilier
   http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublication?journalCode=physbioczool
   Vol. 74, No. 3 (May/June 2001) , pp. 390-397
   Published by: The University of Chicago Press. Sponsored by the Division of Comparative Physiology and Biochemistry, Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology
   Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/320428

 

[Evo]

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations is not a valid source of information?

Note, I did not represent the information as recommended calorie intakes, but rather actual calorie intakes.

Get off your high horse.

You originally said 1st world countries consumed 1-2k calories per day.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Physical things like net energy can be quantified.

The metaphysical stuff cannot be (at least not with science). By definition, if it is subject to repeatable experiment, it is physical.

This gets into the spiritual/philosophical discussions, which are sometimes frowned upon in this forum.

 

[Andy Resnick]

<snip>
Question 1. Is it possible to measure or estimate the Net energy it takes to sustain an organism?

Yes- there are various methods able to measure energy consumption from whole organisms all the way down to single cells (cellular respiration).

I think the The Miller–Urey experiment tries to get to this answer. This experiment was done in 1952! Question 2. So what do we know now, after nearly 64 years of scientific progress?

There has been a lot of progress, mostly on the genetics side, but the essential questions remain: how did a cell membrane form, and how did a autocatalytic set of biochemical reactions become established?

Our cells communicate with each other through electrical and chemical processes. It could be argued then that we ourselves create a magnetic field based on our cellular processes. Question 3 Can we measure this? Have we?

Yes, and yes.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Most humans in the first world consume 2000-4000 calories per day. A lot of people in the third world survive on under 1600 calories per day..

I think you mean 2000-4000 kCal/day.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

I think you mean 2000-4000 kCal/day.

Yes, of course, I mean food calories.

But I think the proper abbreviation would be kcal, since 1 kcal = 1 Cal

2000 kCal would be 2,000,000 cal.

This calorie unit business gets tricky.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie

 

[Evo]

I didn't mean to insinuate that the FAO is invalid, but it's not as specific to the actual calorie intakes by gender and age as the sources I posted, there is a large unexplained discrepancy.

 

[Daniel Hoffman]

The membrane question is a real head scratcher for sure. We can conclude though that...
We are still scientifically trying to answer,

how did a autocatalytic set of biochemical reactions become established?

and

how did a cell membrane form

So can you elaborate on how we can measure our magnetic field and how the fields work in conjunction with our energy use, ie: our electro-chemical processes. In my eyes this is pretty much the same thing as chakra and or prana. Maybe a look into how acupunture is supposed to work will help... Anyone know?

 

[Daniel Hoffman]

hey Evo and Dr. Courtney can you continue your discussion on proper citations in private? I am trying to focus on a different topic.

 

[Evo]

The citation I used was the source of information for the original post.

Ok, please post that source.

 

[Evo]

So can you elaborate on how we can measure our magnetic field and how the fields work in conjunction with our energy use, ie: our electro-chemical processes. In my eyes this is pretty much the same thing as chakra and or prana. Maybe a look into how acupunture is supposed to work will help... Anyone know?

Sorry, we do not get into these things here.

 

[Daniel Hoffman]

Hey now. Why don't we talk about physical phenomina on a physics forum. Please point me to the proper rules and guidelines regarding this subject matter.

I am being honest and genuine in trying to get to the bottom of this. I truly want to understand on a physical, even on a mathematical level on how these things work. Just because you don't know the answer doesn't mean others won't like to explore what it is either. It doesn't matter what you call it, it exists and understanding it is my goal.
I appreciate cited sources but if someone edited their original post to include the correct sources i don't see what the problem is. That is beside the facts which what I am trying to learn about.

I don't want to digress any further so I leave the discussion open to anyone who would like to comment on my previous post and questions.

 

[Evo]

Hey now. Why don't we talk about physical phenomina on a physics forum. Please point me to the proper rules and guidelines regarding this subject matter.

I am being honest and genuine in trying to get to the bottom of this. I truly want to understand on a physical, even on a mathematical level on how these things work. Just because you don't know the answer doesn't mean others won't like to explore what it is either. It doesn't matter what you call it, it exists and understanding it is my goal.
I appreciate cited sources but if someone edited their original post to include the correct sources i don't see what the problem is. That is beside the facts which what I am trying to learn about.

I don't want to digress any further so I leave the discussion open to anyone who would like to comment on my previous post and questions.

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/physics-forums-global-guidelines.414380/

Non-mainstream theories:
Generally, in the forums we do not allow the following:

• Discussion of theories that appear only on personal web sites, self-published books, etc.
• Challenges to mainstream theories (relativity, the Big Bang, etc.) that go beyond current professional discussion
• Attempts to promote or resuscitate theories that have been discredited or superseded (e.g. Lorentz ether theory); this does not exclude discussion of those theories in a purely historical context
• Personal theories or speculations that go beyond or counter to generally-accepted science
• Mixing science and religion, e.g. using religious doctrines in support of scientific arguments or vice versa.
• Philosophical discussions are permitted only at the discretion of the mentors and may be deleted or closed without warning or appeal

Links to web sites that fall in the categories listed above will be removed.

 

[Daniel Hoffman]

I argue that the discussion of how energy travels from cell to cell and creates a current, therefore a magnetic field, is in fact a main stream topic. Whatever you want to call it is up to you. It doesn't change the fact that this phenomena happens and is real. I guess for future discussion we can drop the Indian term and forget about it.
I am not challenging any theories.

I haven't done any real literature search on this but I am sure there is at least one person on this forum who has. Andy was helpful and productive in his comments. I feel that your comments have been just the opposite, close minded and unproductive to the discussion.

So please, can we continue this discussion in a more professional and insightful way that provokes both thought and intrigue, both on the topics of how biology and physics work hand in hand?

 

[Andy Resnick]

<snip>
So can you elaborate on how we can measure our magnetic field

Two examples:

https://www.lanl.gov/quarterly/q_spring03/squid_text.shtml

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...nquQAQ&usg=AFQjCNEzBDbQ4Xidgu11GppzrVHP2A_Zlw

 

[Daniel Hoffman]

Thank you Andy!

After reading a little more and thinking about it I am being flooded of memories from various classes of how ATP and the other chemical energy units are synthesized and used. I was unaware of the SQUID technology though and am really enjoying reading about it! This source is from 10 years ago and I am sure they have progressed since then. If any other have more information on any of the topics discussed I am open to hear and learn more.

 

[Andy Resnick]

<snip>If any other have more information on any of the topics discussed I am open to hear and learn more.

We use electrophysiology to measure ionic currents through epithelial tissue (directed salt and water transport)- a search on 'transepithelial electrophysiology' will give you some hits.

Also of potential interest are gap junctions- signalling molecules (Ca++, cAMP, etc) can diffuse through and create propagating waves. Search "calcium waves" for some cool videos.

 

[Evo]

It doesn't change the fact that this phenomena happens and is real. I guess for future discussion we can drop the Indian term and forget about it.

That's fine, we just don't get into discussions of "chakras and Pranas". I see that Andy has given some good sources.

 

[Guco]

So I have been looking around throughout the physics forum and other sources and still can't seem to find a good general explanation of how Life, and energy are related.
Question 1. Is it possible to measure or estimate the Net energy it takes to sustain an organism? the answer to this question I believe lies within the realm of Metabolism..

Like said before, this can be done. Information about metabolic rates can for example be used to make estimates about biodiversity and biomass in relatively isolated systems (for example deep water reefs).

There had to be an origin of life at sometime and I am trying to understand how the energy from the sun gave rise to complex life.

The sun might not necessarily have been the primary source of energy for the first lifeforms. There are other sources of energy besides sunlight. In any case you do need a constant flow of energy, but there is probably a fuzzy boundary where you go from complex chemistry to actual life. There is plenty of information out there about how this could have happened, we just don't know exactly how it happened and perhaps we may never know.

I think the The Miller–Urey experiment tries to get to this answer. This experiment was done in 1952! Question 2. So what do we know now, after nearly 64 years of scientific progress?

It's easy to underestimate just how extremely sensitive life is to its surroundings. Currently we can't even grow most microbial lifeforms in the lab (in a way that allows you to study them). And that's life that's actually already out there and where we actually can go to the place it lives and do measurements. Also, keep in mind that the length such an experiment runs is measured in weeks or months, while the relevant timeframe for the formation of life is millions of years. This means that if formation of life is dependent on extremely unlikely (but possible) chance events you might not be able to replicate it, even if you know it can theoretically happen and can mimic the right conditions in an experimental setting.

 

[Murdstone]

A classic - Life : Its Nature, Origin, and Development. A. I. Oparin. Best read in the original. Develops in some detail the processing of energy. A key is to appreciate that at all times Life is a metabolic process.

It is given that there is a sufficient amount of energy. The interest is in what this energy is becoming and how.

 

[Evo]

The Op appears to have been satisfied with Andy's explanations.