Why Plants Are Green: Debunking the Myth of Black

[AtomicJoe]

Surely black would be better.

 

[mishrashubham]

Surely black would be better.

Yes black would definitely better. It certainly makes sense for plants to absorb the entire spectrum of white light that is avilable. And so does absorbing infrared, ultraviolet, and whatever EM radiation that is available. Yet that is not the case. May be that is because there are no molecules, which are efficient enough to capture green light or other wavelengths and produce energy that gives the plant positive returns for its investment in making those molecules.

Indeed there are organisms which do not use chlorophyll as the major light absorbing pigment. A prime example is red algae, which absorb longer wavelengths since they have more penetrating power through larger depths in the sea.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Quoting http://science-at-home.org/kid-question-why-is-grass-green/" ;

Why is it green?

We see because of light bouncing off things and getting into our eyes, the colour that bounces off is what it looks like. Chlorophyll looks green because it stores the red and blue light and bounces off the green and yellow light which go to our eyes. However this doesn’t make much sense – most of the light from the sun is yellow and green! So plants aren’t even touching most of the light they receive.

We don’t really know why this is. Apart from a few communities in the deep ocean and purple bacteria, all life on Earth depends on chlorophyll and photosynthesis. So if something came along that was more efficient it would have had a good chance of taking over because it would have had more energy and could grow faster, pushing out the inefficient chlorophyll. This hasn’t happened in billions of years, so there must be a very good reason plants use chlorophyll.

The best guess is that chlorophyll is so good at storing and transferring light energy that this makes up for only being able to use a little bit of it, and molecules that store the abundant green and yellow light aren’t very good at it. This leads to an exciting idea. Maybe chlorophyll is unique – maybe it is absolutely the best molecule so if you are going to get energy from light you almost have to use it. In that case, maybe it is being used by living things in other solar systems too. What’s really exciting is that we can look for chlorophyll and it’s product, oxygen, on other planets. Looking at the light coming from stars with very special telescopes we can tell what is there because of the light that is being used and the light that is bouncing off, exactly the same as our eyes do on earth. We have already found over 500 planets in other star systems and are getting to the stage where we can detect them directly, it may not be too long before we can look for chlorophyll on other planets.

So in summary; plants are green because chlorophyll is. There is most likely something about chlorophyll that is advantageous though it is not currently known why. Personally I agree with John Berman;

The biologist John Berman has offered the opinion that evolution is not an engineering process, and so it is often subject to various limitations that an engineer or other designer is not. Even if black leaves were better, evolution's limitations can prevent species from climbing to the absolute highest peak on the fitness landscape. Berman wrote that achieving pigments that work better than chlorophyll could be very difficult. In fact, all higher plants (embryophytes) are believed to have evolved from a common ancestor that is a sort of green algae - with the idea being that chlorophyll has evolved only once

EDIT: I'm not sure if this has been explored (I'll look it up when I have time) but being black would obviously cause a rise in temperature. This could disrupt the catalytic activity of the enzymes involved in the photosynthetic process, perhaps the need for a more efficient (and probably complex) thermoregulatory process makes anything other than chlorophyll unlikely to evolve as it would not be competitive against the simpler green chlorophyll unless it also evolved this thermoregulation at the same time.

 

[AtomicJoe]

Yes black would definitely better. It certainly makes sense for plants to absorb the entire spectrum of white light that is avilable. And so does absorbing infrared, ultraviolet, and whatever EM radiation that is available. Yet that is not the case. May be that is because there are no molecules, which are efficient enough to capture green light or other wavelengths and produce energy that gives the plant positive returns for its investment in making those molecules.

Indeed there are organisms which do not use chlorophyll as the major light absorbing pigment. A prime example is red algae, which absorb longer wavelengths since they have more penetrating power through larger depths in the sea.

Yes the idea that there is only one chemical capable of extracting energy from light just does not cut the mustard. There are numerous

 

[mishrashubham]

So in summary; plants are green because chlorophyll is. There is most likely something about chlorophyll that is advantageous though it is not currently known why. Personally I agree with John Berman;



EDIT: I'm not sure if this has been explored (I'll look it up when I have time) but being black would obviously cause a rise in temperature. This could disrupt the catalytic activity of the enzymes involved in the photosynthetic process, perhaps the need for a more efficient (and probably complex) thermoregulatory process makes anything other than chlorophyll unlikely to evolve as it would not be competitive against the simpler green chlorophyll unless it also evolved this thermoregulation at the same time.

You are right, thermoregulation is a significant possibility. Although I slightly disagree with the idea of having reached a peak in the Fitness landscape, since chlorophyll need not be replaced by another more efficient molecule. It could as well be an accesory pigment if it existed.

 

[Evo]

Good discussion.

This thread at the naked science forum raises some of the issues.

Chlorophyll is green, it cannot turn black, or purple. It is other pigments added to the chlorophyll that give you leaves of different colours. Photosynthesis is a very complex process, and is not just a matter of absorbing as much light as possible... it is also about what is done with that light! Too much light is already a major problem for many plants, at least some of the time.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=12870.0

This is really good.

http://cronodon.com/BioTech/Plants_FAQ.html

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Yes the idea that there is only one chemical capable of extracting energy from light just does not cut the mustard. There are numerous

Indeed, but the fact that more than one exists doesn't mean that it will evolve across the board. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloroplast" evolved to utilise light, they happened to be green. This would have been a massive advantage, it's perhaps possible that another pigment could have evolved and we'd all be sitting here asking "why are the plants blue?" but it is also possible that there is a biochemical/regulatory reason as to why green was initially favoured.

You are right, thermoregulation is a significant possibility. Although I slightly disagree with the idea of having reached a peak in the Fitness landscape, since chlorophyll need not be replaced by another more efficient molecule. It could as well be an accesory pigment if it existed.

Agreed though I think that to evolve extra pigments would involve evolving a lot of extra metabolic pathways to run it and make it worth while. It's a bit like installing a different type of solar panel on your house without placing the infrastructure.

Good discussion.

This thread at the naked science forum raises some of the issues.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=12870.0

This is really good.

http://cronodon.com/BioTech/Plants_FAQ.html

Good links Evo

 

[That Neuron]

Clorophyll is simply more cost effective for plants to use... It is a small molecule capable of ejecting electrons fairly rapidly, it is only replaced with other (similar) molecules when the environment calls for it (like as has been previously stated by many algae and plants which receive mainly red light... Most often evolution has found the most energy efficient alternative already... If there was a black molecule (easily manafactured) that could eject electrons of a wavelength that could be accepted by a transport chain... nature would have done it already.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

If there was a black molecule (easily manafactured) that could eject electrons of a wavelength that could be accepted by a transport chain... nature would have done it already.

Potentially true unless the evolution of a black molecule would require a more complex support biology. Once green chlorophyll spread everywhere it could be that the required changes to develop a black molecule would lead down a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_landscape" , thus would be selected against before it got there. I'm not saying this did happen, but it is possible.

 

[That Neuron]

Once green chlorophyll spread everywhere it could be that the required changes to develop a black molecule would lead down a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_landscape" , thus would be selected against before it got there. I'm not saying this did happen, but it is possible.

Yeah I agree with you, I suppose there are enough environments on Earth to 'guide' a chlorophyll containing organism into becoming a Black chlorophyll containing organism... but still a maybe

 

[ViewsofMars]

A bioessay Into the deep: new discoveries at the base of the green plant phylogeny
from July 11, 2011 should be helpful to this discussion Why are plants green:

Into the deep: new discoveries at the base of the green plant phylogeny
Frederik Leliaert 1)*, Heroen Verbruggen 1) and Frederick W. Zechman 2)
1) Phycology Research Group, Biology Department, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
2) Department of Biology, California State University Fresno, Fresno, CA, USA
Abstract
Recent data have provided evidence for an unrecognized ancient lineage of green plants, which persists in marine deep-water environments. The green plants are a major group of photosynthetic eukaryotes that have played a prominent role in the global ecosystem for millions of years. A schism early in their evolution gave rise to two major lineages, one of which diversified in the world’s oceans and gave rise to a large diversity of marine and freshwater green algae (Chlorophyta) while the other gave rise to a diverse array of freshwater green algae and the land plants (Streptophyta). It is generally believed that the earliest-diverging Chlorophyta were motile planktonic unicells, but the discovery of an ancient group of deep-water seaweeds shakes up our understanding of the basal branches of the green plant phylogeny. In this review, we discuss current insights into the origin and diversification of the green lineage.

Keywords: green algae; Palmophyllales; phylogeny; prasinophytes; Viridiplantae A brief history of green plant evolution

The green plants are one of the most dominant groups of primary producers on earth. They include the green algae and the embryophytes, which are generally known as the land plants. While the green algae are ubiquitous in the world’s oceans and freshwater ecosystems, the land plants are major structural components of terrestrial ecosystems [1,2]. The green plant lineage is ancient, probably over a billion years old [3,4], and intricate evolutionary trajectories underlie its present taxonomic and ecological diversity. The green plants originated following an endosymbiotic event, where a heterotrophic eukaryotic cell engulfed a photosynthetic cyanobacterium-like prokaryote that became stably integrated and eventually evolved into a membrane-bound organelle, the plastid [5,6]. This single event marked the origin of oxygenic photosynthesis in eukaryotes and gave rise to three autotrophic lineages with primary plastids: the green plants, the red algae and the glaucophytes. From this starting point, photosynthesis spread widely among the eukaryotes via secondary endosymbiotic events that involved the capture of either green or red algae by diverse non-photosynthetic eukaryotes, thus transferring the captured cyanobacterial endosymbionts (i.e., the plastids) laterally among eukaryotes [5]. Some of these secondary endosymbiotic partnerships have in their turn been captured by other eukaryotes, known as tertiary endosymbiosis, resulting in an intricate history of plastid acquisition [reviewed in 5,6,7]. Three groups of photosynthetic eukaryotes now have plastids derived from a green algal endosymbiont: the chlorarachniophytes, a small group of mixotrophic algae from tropical seas, the euglenophytes, which are especially common in freshwater, and some green dinoflagellates. A much wider diversity of photosynthetic eukaryotes, including the dinoflagellates, haptophytes, cryptophytes, chrysophytes, diatoms and brown seaweeds have
obtained plastids from a red algal ancestor, either by a single or by repeated endosymbiotic events
[6,8].

Please read on . . .
http://users.ugent.be/~fleliaer/publications/Into_the_deep.pdf

 

[Mike H]

I think that the Plant FAQ at the Cronodon site Evo linked to hits the nail on the head - it's something that makes sense in the light of evolution. Given that eukaryotes picked up the ability to do photosynthesis from cyanobacteria, it's rather logical that they predominantly use chlorophyll. Of course, it can be helpful to examine the details of this as well. Some assorted comments on the topic -

- If you look at the solar spectrum as recorded at sea level - see for example http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/spectra/am1.5/ - it's definitely been attenuated from the extraterrestrial spectrum, and a bit flatter in the visible range.

- In terms of biochemical efficiency, the chlorophyll special pair in Photosystem II (the oxygen-evolving complex) has an absorption maxima at 680 nm. When oxidized, it is capable of stripping the electrons from water and forming dioxygen. At this point, all an organism pretty much needs is sunlight, carbon dioxide, and whatever trace minerals are necessary. Cyanobacteria, of course, are capable of differentiating cells that fix nitrogen, and plants frequently play host to nitrogen-fixing bacteria.

- Another biochemical consideration - modification of the porphyrin group with a different metal center could have given rise to potentially dangerous reactive species. For example, various cytochromes have iron-containing porphyrins that are redox-active such as cytochrome P450 and carry out harsh oxidative chemistry that needs to be carefully modulated. It might change the absorption properties, but it could also very likely change the chemical reactivity for the worse. Covalent modification of porphyrins can also change the spectral properties, although I'd have to check and see if they'd be capable of shifting the absorption maxima far enough (I have a recollection that methylation and other small organic functional groups tend to do things on the order of 10 to 20 nm in the peak shift, not 100 to 200 nm).

- There are, of course, other mechanisms to harvest solar energy in nature, although not necessarily for carbon fixation. Bacteriorhodopsin uses the photoinduced conformational switch of a bound retinal molecule to power proton translocation across a membrane.

- There are other photosynthetic pigments that organisms use, some of which are tetrapyrroles of one sort or another, but there are also a variety of carotenoids floating around that vary from organism to organism. I think there is something to the idea that evolution co-opted already existing biochemistry (tetrapyrroles/porphyrins are fairly ubiquitous) for photosynthesis.

 

[ViewsofMars]

I think that the Plant FAQ at the Cronodon site Evo linked to hits the nail on the head - it's something that makes sense in the light of evolution.

I'm sorry but I don't support that website. One reason is obvious by my previous post and the other is it recommends 'Adam McLean's Alchemy Web site and courses'.

 

[Mike H]

I'm sorry but I don't support that website. One reason is obvious by my previous post and the other is it recommends 'Adam McLean's Alchemy Web site and courses'.

So recent advances in molecular phylogenetics are suggesting that things are not nearly so simple as once thought. Color me surprised! (Actually, don't - I've noticed over the years that the phrase "recent advances in molecular phylogenetics have caused us to reassess our understanding of XYZ" - or ones like it - crops up EVERYWHERE in the biological sciences, so if anything, it's rather interesting. And kind of amusing, but that may just be me.)

Still, the fundamental point remains - there was an endosymbiotic event in the past involving eukaryotes and cyanobacteria, and suddenly photosynthesis was no longer the domain of prokaryotes. How it went from there, that's not really the point I was focused on in my earlier post. I was mostly focusing on the fact that the fundamental machinery found in plants is the same found in cyanobacteria - light-harvesting complexes, Photosystem II & Photosystem I - and it does the same essential biochemistry.

I haven't looked at the rest of that website, so I can't offer any commentary on that.

 

[ViewsofMars]

I haven't looked at the rest of that website, so I can't offer any commentary on that.

Like I said earlier Mike, I don't support your comment, "I think that the Plant FAQ at the Cronodon site Evo linked to hits the nail on the head - it's something that makes sense in the light of evolution."

I provided evidence to the contrary in the bioessay Into the deep: new discoveries at the base of the green plant phylogeny dated July 11, 2011. If you read the bioessay it disputes the "cronodon" website that states:

Q.1 Why are plants green?

There is currently no complete answer available for this question, however, here follow the basics of what is . . .

Mike, as a "chemist" I'm surprised you didn't explore the website prior to supporting it. Like I said before, I don't support the Cronodon website since it distorts the truth as I've mentioned above and I surely don't support 'Adam McLean's Alchemy Web site and courses' which is listed on the cronodon website:http://cronodon.com/Links.html

I'm sure Evo didn't realize it was there as well.

 

[Evo]

Like I said earlier Mike, I don't support your comment, "I think that the Plant FAQ at the Cronodon site Evo linked to hits the nail on the head - it's something that makes sense in the light of evolution."

I provided evidence to the contrary in the bioessay Into the deep: new discoveries at the base of the green plant phylogeny dated July 11, 2011. If you read the bioessay it disputes the "cronodon" website that states:


Mike, as a "chemist" I'm surprised you didn't explore the website prior to supporting it. Like I said before, I don't support the Cronodon website since it distorts the truth as I've mentioned above and I surely don't support 'Adam McLean's Alchemy Web site and courses' which is listed on the cronodon website:http://cronodon.com/Links.html

I'm sure Evo didn't realize it was there as well.

I linked only to the plant FAQ, it appears to be factual based on my other reading, and it's explained clearly and in layman's terms. I am not concerned with what ever links they provide to other sites for reading other subjects.

I appreciate you bringing up that other links to other websites may not be of the same quality, but it's not pertinent to this discussion.

Edit: Actually that link is a treasure trove of ancient historical texts on alchemy. http://www.alchemywebsite.com/texts.html

Can you post specifically where they dispute the information provided in the plant FAQ? I don't see it. I could have missed it, I am suffering from chronic sleep deprivation.

 

[DaveC426913]

Still, it seems preposterous that - despite evolution's incredible penchant for finding multiple ways to crack its nuts - for some reason chlorophyll has been virtually the only cracking of this particular nut for 3 billion years. And it's not just any nut - it is the nut upon which virtually the entire rest of the Earth's ecosystem is founded.

 

[ViewsofMars]

Evo, I think we will have to agree to disagree, hoping in the future we use reputable websites.

Carnegie Institute for Science on June 15, 2011 has a quality article entitled "What makes a plant a plant?" Understanding about a plant is important.
http://carnegiescience.edu/news/what_makes_plant_plant

I stand behind what I have contributed on the previous page.

p.s. Dear Evo, you are a very sweet person whom I admire because you are a dedicated member of PHYSICSFORUMS but foremost above all else a kind person. I'm off to take a vacation with a bunch of ladies. Wish you were with us. FUN TIME with R&R! Take care.

 

[Mike H]

DaveC426913 – Your post reminded me that evolution may have tinkered with chlorophyll along the way. In the photosynthetic anaerobes, we see bacteriochlorophylls with a slightly different structure of the porphyrin ring that have an absorption maxima in the infrared. In cyanobacteria and others, we see that chlorophylls are predominant whose absorption properties have already been mentioned. In the anaerobes, the organisms rely upon fairly well-known reduced chemical species (hydrogen sulfide for one) as an electron source – but in cyanobacteria, algae, and plants, we see water being used.

One factor –which I’ve indirectly mentioned – is that chlorophyll (and bacteriochlorophyll, for that matter) is used as in the electron transfer chain of photosynthetic reaction centers, most notably as the “special pair” component of said chain, and not just in light-harvesting. That chlorophyll serves in a part of the mechanism past the light absorption phase might serve as an additional constraint on tinkering by evolutionary mechanisms. If one strays too far in terms of a critical physicochemical parameter, electron transfer – and subsequent biochemistry – might take an unfortunate hit.

Related to my earlier comment about modification of the porphyrin ring substituents – it can get complicated. And hard to keep straight in my head, especially as it’s been more than a few years now since I was keeping up with this material to some extent.

ViewsOfMars – I hope your vacation is delightful. If you have the time when you return, I would sincerely appreciate a response to the following.

I read the paper by Leliaert, Verbruggen, and Zechman. Their recapitulation of the evolution of photosynthesis in eukaryotes meshes with mine – an endosymbiotic event involving a eukaryotic ancestor and with a photosynthetic cyanobacterium-like prokaryote. This is basically where I stopped, as the subsequent evolution of photosynthesis in eukaryotes and green plants in particular is rooted in this event and was not directly relevant to the points I was hoping to make. I did work through the remainder of the paper in a modicum of detail.

The authors go on to mention that after this event, three lineages arose and they spend some time explaining how things went from there. The one aspect that is mentioned that I consider relevant to the discussion of photosynthetic pigments is the persistence and success of the red pigmented organisms, which they note allows for greater efficiency underwater and might reflect differential usage of trace elements by the algae as a whole. The remainder of the paper essentially sketches out the advances in molecular phylogenetics and explorations of little-known deep-water seaweeds, as well suggesting that further studies of the hard-to-treach ecosystems where photosynthetic life may flourish might clarify genetic and evolutionary relationships.

Nowhere in the article do I see them object to the use of evolutionary theory in explaining biological phenomenona. If anything, the entire paper is predicated upon it! Their mentions of chlorophyll and pigments mostly revolve around the aforementioned bit about red pigmented organisms, some differences in chlorophyll and pigment abundances in a group of the deep-water seaweeds, and what seems to be a mention of their use in understanding phylogenetic relationships. It does not address the physical and chemical details that are the topic of this thread in any explicit manner. The thrust of their paper is to propose that application of modern research methods and exploration of previously understudied ecosystems is likely to be very fruitful in elaborating the details of the evolutionary relationships between the various photosynthetic eukaryotes. While the molecular details that are of interest here in this thread will almost certainly be touched upon peripherally as a result of such proposed research, they are not the primary interest.

Insofar as the efforts you linked to in the press release from the Carnegie Institution, again, the article flat-out states that the current understanding of how eukaryotes gained the ability to carry out photosynthesis involved endosymbiosis between a eukaryotic ancestor and cyanobacteria. The underlying biochemistry that governs pigment biosynthesis has its origins in the early days of life on Earth. Yes, as seen in the paper by Leliaert, Verbruggen, and Zechman, organisms can adapt, but the adaptations are apparently on the order of preferring different chlorophyll derivatives and from differences in trace element abundances.

Insofar as to my not exploring that website – I saw the FAQ that was linked to in the thread, saw what it had to say, and judged it on its own merits. If I had found it full of numerous egregious errors, I would surely have not mentioned it in my original response. I thought that, in the end, its statement that the “chlorophyll decision” is due to how photosynthesis evolved is likely to be correct to a reasonable degree.

I did poke around the site afterwards, though, a bit. They have the structures for amino acids correct. Its depiction of the formation of a peptide bond is accurate. While very succinct, the site presents protein secondary structure and above without any major errors that immediately popped out at me. I also thought that its presentation of lipids was short and sweet. That it links to a site which – at the very least – serves as a resource to those who research the topic in a serious manner is, at best, a minor distraction. Some people find discovering hidden delights in obscure texts to be enjoyable, others get their endorphin rush elsewhere.

 

[ViewsofMars]

Mike, I explained everything on the previous page and this one. As far as your comment, "Some people find discovering hidden delights in obscure texts to be enjoyable, others get their endorphin rush elsewhere." Your comment refers to "alchemy" which I have stood my ground because I don't endorse alchemy since it is psuedoscience! (1) Like I earlier said, "I don't support the Cronodon website! And I did say to you, "Mike, as a "chemist" I'm surprised you didn't explore the website prior to supporting it. Like I said before, I don't support the Cronodon website since it distorts the truth as I've mentioned above[refer to msg. #15] and I surely don't support 'Adam McLean's Alchemy Web site and courses' which is listed on the cronodon website:http://cronodon.com/Links.html'. You seem to still support the website and alchemy whereas I don't!

From Skeptic's Dictionary explains alchemy:

An occult art whose practitioners’ main goals have been to turn base metals such as lead or copper into precious metals such as gold or silver (the transmutation motif); to create an elixir, potion, or metal that could cure all ills (the panacea motif); and to discover an elixir that would lead to immortality (the transcendence motif). The philosopher's stone is the name given to the magical substance that was to accomplish these feats.

Many modern alchemists combine their occult art with acupuncture, astrology, hypnosis, and a wide variety of New Age spiritual quests. Alchemists may have tried out their ideas by devising experiments, but they never separated their methods from the supernatural, the magickal, and the superstitious. Perhaps that is why alchemy is still popular, even though it has accomplished practically nothing of lasting value. Alchemists never transmuted metals, never found a panacea, and never discovered the fountain of youth. Alchemy is based on the belief that there are four basic elements—fire, air, earth, and water—and three essentials: salt, sulfur, and mercury. Great symbolic and occult systems have been built from these seven pillars of alchemy. The foundation of European alchemy, which flourished through the Renaissance, is said to be ancient Chinese and Egyptian occult literature. The Egyptian god Thoth, known as Hermes Trismegistus, allegedly wrote one of the books considered by the alchemists to be most sacred. (Hermes, the thricegreat, was the Greek god who served as a messenger and delivered the souls of the dead to Hades.) The book in question, Corpus Hermeticum, began circulating in Florence, Italy, around 1455. The work is full of magic incantations and spells and is now known to be of European origin.
http://skepdic.com/alchem.html

1. http://skepdic.com/pseudosc.html

 

[Evo]

Mike, I explained everything on the previous page and this one. As far as your comment, "Some people find discovering hidden delights in obscure texts to be enjoyable, others get their endorphin rush elsewhere." Your comment refers to "alchemy" which I have stood my ground because I don't endorse alchemy since it is psuedoscience! (1) Like I earlier said, "I don't support the Cronodon website! And I did say to you, "Mike, as a "chemist" I'm surprised you didn't explore the website prior to supporting it. Like I said before, I don't support the Cronodon website since it distorts the truth as I've mentioned above[refer to msg. #15] and I surely don't support 'Adam McLean's Alchemy Web site and courses' which is listed on the cronodon website:http://cronodon.com/Links.html'. You seem to still support the website and alchemy whereas I don't!

From Skeptic's Dictionary explains alchemy:



1. http://skepdic.com/pseudosc.html

So we should erase Isaac Newton and other famous scientists because they were alchemists? You do know Isaac Newton was an alchemist?

With all due respect, I think you are being unreasonable in not wanting a link to credible science because you disagree with an unrelated link you found elsewhere on their site, although they do not offer support of the link or even discuss the contents? Are we now going to call all websites that link to Isaac Newton crackpot?

ISAAC NEWTON: ALCHEMIST

I'm John Lienhard, at the University of Houston, where we're interested in the way inventive minds work.

http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi967.htm

 

[Mike H]

ViewsOfMars – I am sorry, but I cannot see how the Leliaert, Verbruggen, and Zechman (LVZ) paper explicitly addresses the questions in this thread regarding the evolution of photosynthetic pigments, and their conservation in the subsequent evolution of photosynthetic organisms, in any significant detail, outside of the very particular and in-passing mentions that I previously described. The LVZ paper’s focus as a whole, in my reading of it, is on further elucidation of the evolution of green plants via modern phylogenetic methods and by tapping into heretofore underexplored ecosystems. While they both are in the same ballpark, it’s not the same game. If you can make the case to clearly and explicitly connect the material in the LVZ paper to the questions in the thread, it would be most appreciated.

You seem intent on taking me to task for positively commenting on material that I thought was succinct, clear, and – insofar as my knowledge and understanding permitted – accurate, due to the presence of one dubious-looking link on the site where that material resides online. You have not mentioned the presence of the other links – which include NASA, Open University, and ESA – in your posts. You have not addressed my comments regarding the other material I did eventually check and found to be clear statements of current understanding regarding fundamental biochemistry. You have not addressed Evo’s comment that the site is a source for texts of historical/literary interest. It is not clear on the website the basis for including that link to alchemical texts and material. It could be for any number of reasons. I personally find alchemy to be interesting in a historical sense (see, for example, The Chymistry of Isaac Newton) and of course for the ability to further extract enjoyment from various books, graphic storytelling, and other media (Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone, the manga/anime Fullmetal Alchemist, among others). However, as I am not a mind-reader, and that the other pages on the website seem to be fairly reasonable, I am not going to get too worked up over a single hyperlink.

 

[ViewsofMars]

Isaac Newton was not an ALCHEMIST! Geez whiz, don't believe everything from a website just because a person says he was an alchemist. Use some reputable websites:


1. Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences - Isaac Newton's Life
"I INTRODUCTION
Newton, Sir Isaac (1642-1727), mathematician and physicist, one of the foremost scientific intellects of all time."
http://www.Newton.ac.uk/newtlife.html

2. PubMed

Isaac Newton and the astronomical refraction.
Lehn WH.
SourceDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg R3T 5V6, Canada.

Abstract
In a short interval toward the end of 1694, Isaac Newton developed two mathematical models for the theory of the astronomical refraction and calculated two refraction tables, but did not publish his theory. Much effort has been expended, starting with Biot in 1836, in the attempt to identify the methods and equations that Newton used. In contrast to previous work, a closed form solution is identified for the refraction integral that reproduces the table for his first model (in which density decays linearly with elevation). The parameters of his second model, which includes the exponential variation of pressure in an isothermal atmosphere, have also been identified by reproducing his results. The implication is clear that in each case Newton had derived exactly the correct equations for the astronomical refraction; furthermore, he was the first to do so.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/e...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

That's it for me here. I surely wouldn't recommend a person visit a website that supports alchemy though I see other people would.

 

[Evo]

Isaac Newton was not an ALCHEMIST! Geez whiz, don't believe everything from a website just because a person says he was an alchemist. Use some reputable websites:


1. Isaac Newton Institute for Mathematical Sciences - Isaac Newton's Life
"I INTRODUCTION
Newton, Sir Isaac (1642-1727), mathematician and physicist, one of the foremost scientific intellects of all time."
http://www.Newton.ac.uk/newtlife.html

Ok, your link says he's an alchemist.

Scroll down to Section V

V ALCHEMY AND CHEMISTRY

Newton left a mass of manuscripts on the subjects of alchemy and chemistry, then closely related topics. Most of these were extracts from books, bibliographies, dictionaries, and so on, but a few are original. He began intensive experimentation in 1669, continuing till he left Cambridge, seeking to unravel the meaning that he hoped was hidden in alchemical obscurity and mysticism. He sought understanding of the nature and structure of all matter, formed from the "solid, massy, hard, impenetrable, movable particles" that he believed God had created. Most importantly in the "Queries" appended to "Opticks" and in the essay "On the Nature of Acids" (1710), Newton published an incomplete theory of chemical force, concealing his exploration of the alchemists, which became known a century after his death.

 

[ViewsofMars]

Evo, he wasn't an alchemist. He studied alchemy back in the 1600's which was what they did back then. He left that behind and pursed science as noted in the link I earlier provided that states, "Newton, Sir Isaac (1642-1727), mathematician and physicist, one of the foremost scientific intellects of all time." We don't study alchemy today because it is psuedoscience as I have noted in the skeptic's link. There isn't a peer-reviewed scientist or reputable scientist today that supports alchemy.

NASA has a great article on Sir Isaac Newton which does not mention alchemy. The article is Newton's Laws of Motion which has nothing to do with alchemy: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/Newton.html

 

[Evo]

I'm sure there are many articles about Netwon that do not need to go into his alchemy, there would just be no reason for it.

The truth though, is that Newton was an alchemist, it's in his papers. It's not a question of was he an alchemist, it's a documented fact.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/Newton-alchemist-newman.html

It doesn't mean he didn't achieve great things. My point is that his involvement in alchemy doesn't mean that we should discredit his other work.

 

[ViewsofMars]

I'm sure there are many articles about Netwon that do not need to go into his alchemy, there would just be no reason for it.

The truth though, is that Newton was an alchemist, it's in his papers. It's not a question of was he an alchemist, it's a documented fact.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/Newton-alchemist-newman.html

It doesn't mean he didn't achieve great things. My point is that his involvement in alchemy doesn't mean that we should discredit his other work.

Like I've repeated he wasn't an alchemist. I don't agree with Bill Newman nor his bit on Newton and alchemy. PBS isn't always the greatest scientific resource. And Bill likes to 'decipher secet coded recipes'. Wow! That tells me a lot about Bill. Bill presumes he knows the secret code of Newton's recipes. (lol!) That sure isn't science! See below what the PBS has to say about the article you presented:

Newton the Alchemist
The revelation that Sir Isaac Newton, perhaps the greatest scientist of all time, practiced the covert art of alchemy may shock us today, but was this pursuit considered deviant in Newton’s own era? To find out, we spoke to Bill Newman, an historian of science at Indiana University who spent years deciphering Newton's secret coded recipes.
Published: November 15, 2005

Moving forward with evidence and fact:

NASA: Sir Isaac Newton (1643-1727), one of the most important figures in the history of science, made significant contributions in the fields of physics, astronomy, and mathematics. In his Principia (1687), considered by many the greatest work of modern science, he explained the laws of motion and universal gravitation. Newton's discoveries in optics were presented in his Opticks (1704), in which he elaborated his theory that light is composed of corpuscles, or particles. These discoveries led Newton to the logical but erroneous conclusion that telescopes using refracting lenses could never overcome the distortions of chromatic dispersion. He, therefore, proposed and constructed a reflecting telescope in 1668, the first of its kind, and the prototype of the largest modern optical telescopes.
http://dawn.jpl.nasa.gov/DawnClassrooms/1_hist_dawn/bio_review.asp

2011 Isaac Newton Medal of the Institute of Physics:

Professor Leo P. Kadanoff
University of Chicago
For inventing conceptual tools that reveal the deep implications of scale invariance on the behavior of phase transitions and dynamical systems.

Two of the deepest discoveries in condensed matter physics in the twentieth century were primarily conceptual: they revealed a new level of meaning and regularity in familiar but inchoate phenomena. These were the theory of divergent "critical" fluctuations at a phase transition and the theory of chaos in dynamical systems. Leo Kadanoff played the seminal role in the first and a major role in the second.

As with Newton's theory of planetary orbits, a new mathematical conception had to be invented in order to achieve our current understanding of critical fluctuations. The new notion came to be called the renormalization group: the system viewed at an expanded spatial scale was shown equivalent to the original system with altered parameters such as temperature and magnetic field. Kadanoff was the first to find a conceptual pathway to infer the transformation of the system parameters induced by such a spatial dilation. He was also the first to show that such a transformation contains the explanation of the peculiar power law divergences that characterize critical phenomena. Kadanoff's conception led the way to the powerful and systematic theories of Wilson and others.

The renormalization group concept has since proved applicable to many types of fluctuations whose spatial extent increases without bound. Kadanoff and others pioneered the study of scaling or fractal patterns that occur as a dynamical system evolves into chaotic behavior like that of a turbulent fluid. Kadanoff and others also showed how to use the concept of fractal measures to address complex, scale invariant patterns like those encountered in turbulence.
http://www.iop.org/about/awards/international/page_51315.html

 

[Pythagorean]

Surely black would be better.

One thing to keep in mind that lots of energy doesn't mean effective use of energy. The plants need to be able to direct the energy to where they need it. You don't drop an atomic bomb on your car to make the piston fire. You have to make an energy landscape that favors the motion of the piston (i.e. the energy state actually has to be lower on the other side of the piston so that it moves towards that space, away from the higher energy state).

Remember it's the structure of the energy landscape that's important, not the amount of energy present.

 

[Mike H]

One thing to keep in mind that lots of energy doesn't mean effective use of energy. The plants need to be able to direct the energy to where they need it. You don't drop an atomic bomb on your car to make the piston fire. You have to make an energy landscape that favors the motion of the piston (i.e. the energy state actually has to be lower on the other side of the piston so that it moves towards that space, away from the higher energy state).

Remember it's the structure of the energy landscape that's important, not the amount of energy present.

Thanks for this post - it reminded me of yet another issue that I should have addressed earlier. The carotenoids are also observed to play a role in photoprotection to prevent the generation of reactive chemical species - it would suggest that if the plant were to absorb even more light, this issue could be exacerbated.

Insofar as the thread drift regarding alchemy, it's almost better suited for elsewhere, most likely in the History & Humanities forum (which would be quite appropriate). I apologize for contributing to said drift.

I remain interested in your position regarding the LVZ paper and how it connects in an explicit manner to the questions regarding the evolution of photosynthetic pigments (and their retention & variation) that we have discussed in this thread, ViewOfMars.