 |
If organisms are just physical objects and must obey the laws of physics, what biological laws could exist? Physicists explained the Universe. Physicists have finally arrived at The Theory of Everything which explains all known physical phenomena in the universe from the smallest to the most massive things [11]. And organisms are in between. If organisms are physical objects, they are also explained by The Theory of Everything. They should also obey physical laws. But then, do we need Darwin? Do we need Mendel? Do we need Watson & Crick? Could the biology department be subsumed in the Physics department and send biologists home? Let's listen to a physicist:
" ...the biologists simply are not trained to think in terms of symmetries and fundamental laws, as physicists are. (...) Biologist want simple answers that can be written out in a single paragraph, with learning as little mathematics as possible, and they found one in the perspective of Darwin (and, of course it is a perspective and nothing more). It works as a nice description for some things, but it is only a poor description of reality and misses completely at understanding the fundamental function of life. The physicist wants to know what is behind this Darwinian description and this thermodynamic view opens a completely new paradigm with a much richer and profound understanding." Karo Michaelian, August 12, 2020
No wonder that physicists –in possession of the Theory of Everything– want to invade and occupy the territory of biology. As if it were a war. There is only one real science. The usefulness of mathematics for physics is easily explained. Physics deals with dead things. Dead things behave rather predictably. They are being moved by external forces. Newton! The movements of the planets! [12]. But living objects move themselves. In a way that cannot be predicted by physics. How come?
The first difference between physics and biology:
complexity. There are only 118 chemical elements, but millions of
biological species. The chemical elements do not vary, except
radioisotopes which behave predictably. Humans have DNA with 3.5 billion
bases. All humans differ genetically. There are 67.3 million
single-nucleotide polymorphisms in the human population [4]. A
human body has millions of cells, each cell contains in total 42 million
protein molecules. The majority of proteins exist within a narrow range
- between 1000 and 10,000 molecules. Some are outstandingly plentiful at
more than half a million copies, while others exist in fewer than 10
molecules in a cell [1]. And these are only proteins. Physics has no
laws for this huge amount of complexity. Physics studies dead and simple
things.
|
|
A hot cup of tea (source) |
|
|
A hot mouse (Apodemus sylvaticus) ©GK |
Most importantly, physicists don't understand the difference between a mouse and a cup of tea. A mouse maintains a temperature difference between its body and the environment. A cup of tea also has a higher temperature than its environment. But what happens with the cup of tea? The temperature difference has gone within an hour. Just obeying the laws of physics. The mouse maintains the temperature difference all its life. Physical laws don't explain the difference in behaviour between a cup of tea and a mouse. Physics cannot explain how the physical object called 'mouse' maintains its temperature. This example alone suffices to suggest that we need a separate science. It's called biology, the science of the living things.
Does a mouse maximize heat loss? Being naked would help! That would very
likely maximize heat loss [9]. Heat loss may be a driving force in the
abiotic and pre-biotic world. But living organisms have subsystems that
control energy uptake, energy production, energy use, energy
storage, and heat loss [5]. Those systems by-pass physical laws without
violating them. Just as birds and air-planes do not violate the law of
gravity.
In the living world, energy is under control, it is
regulated: thermo-regulation. Because it is under control, pure physical
laws cannot be applied. Therefore, physical laws cannot be the driving
force of evolution.
Yes, physical laws constrain the properties of living organisms,
but within those constrains there is freedom to shape organisms. And
what a shapes there are! Endless forms most beautiful! Heat loss occurs
in living organisms, but it is not a driving force, certainly not
the driving force. Energy management is one of the fundamental
differences between biological and physical systems. This is under
genetic control. Genetics is information [6]. The control of
chemical and physical processes is the main difference between living
and physical systems [2], [5]. It is part of the definition of life.
I add two important reasons why organisms have energy control systems:
- without energy control they die. Energy uptake is not maximized, but optimized.
- organisms can produce more offspring if they use energy more efficiently. That's the evolutionary reason.
Organisms that are less energy efficient waste energy and cannot invest
as much energy in reproduction because that's an energetically very
costly process. In general: energy efficient organisms, especially animals, out-compete less
energy efficient organisms. Energy efficient organisms are winners,
energy wasters are losers [3]. Warm-blooded animals have fat, fur or
feathers to prevent heat loss. Whales, dolphins, seals and other marine
mammals can generate their own heat and maintain a stable body
temperature despite fluctuating environmental conditions. But these
animals take thermoregulation to an extreme, enduring water temperatures
as low as –2 degrees Celsius and air temperatures reaching –40 degrees C
[7]. They have biological inventions that oppose heat loss. That's
against the Thermodynamic Dissipation Theory. Life is a
successful fight against the Second Law of Thermodynamics,
against disorder, against equilibrium
[10]. There is certainly no attempt to lose as much heat as
possible. That would be insane [13].
|
| Dead Weasel Mustela nivalis ©GK |
Even a dead weasel is not quite a dead physical object as can be seen
on the picture above. It is teeming with life. Flies are the first
organisms to occupy the unfortunate animal. Many follow, including
bacteria, worms, beetles, fungi, maybe a fox or a raven [8].
So, if physicists are blind and deaf for the differences between living
and dead objects, no useful exchange of ideas between physicists and
biologists will happen. Arrogance and ignorance will be deadly for any
communication. Only as equal partners in science we will understand
life.
Notes
- A cell holds 42 million protein molecules, Science daily January 17, 2018
- I wrote about that in my review part 2 of Thermodynamic dissipation Theory.
- See further 'Not Wasting Energy' in my review part 2. 16 May 2018.
- For more details see: Open Questions / Genetic variation in this review.
-
'Processes in living systems must be regulated and controlled' is one
of 5 Real (absolute) life criteria. See my
Ganti review. In engineering it is known as: Control Theory. Heat production in a 'warm-blooded' animal is regulated. Otherwise the animal would be overheated and die. The heat is generated by Brown Adipose Tissue. On the other hand, in some animals their metabolic rate and body temperature drop during the night to conserve energy (torpor). To conserve energy! Regulation! Control!
- Information is the difference between life and matter, A review of Hubert Yockey's 'Information theory and molecular biology'. Yockey is a physicist.
- How do marine mammals avoid freezing to death? Scientific American, 13 May 2009.
- Thousands of unexpected microbes break down our bodies after death, Science, Dec. 10, 2015
- If not maximize and not minimize heat loss (minimize heat loss is against TDT), than anything goes? Any value would be compatible with the Thermodynamic Dissipation Theory? But then it would be unfalsifiable! The theory would not forbid anything. It would not predict anything. It would not say one thing about the world. It would make the TDT non-empirical and theory-less. Worst of all: no mathematics involved! That's a serious matter. 14 Aug 2020 15:09
- A friend of mine, Frank Visser, uses this illuminating metaphore: life behaves like a sailboat sailing into the wind. A sail boat has the ability to move forward despite being headed into the wind. Life is also sailing against The Second Law of Thermodynamics dictating that order becomes disorder. 21 Aug 2020;
- In a comment Karo Michaelian wrote "Almost all physicists agree that we have discovered all of the fundamental laws of nature needed to begin an attempt at describing complex systems through these formalisms, both living and non-living systems. We do not need new laws." I would like to see how Michaelian derives Mendel's laws from physical laws! 23 Aug 2020
- Newton ignored the composition of the planets, the elements, the temperature, the composition of the atmosphere. In short: everything geologists, biologists and climatologists are interested in. Newton used abstract planets. Furthermore, physicists use 'ideal gas' or 'perfect gas' (an ideal gas is a theoretical gas composed of many randomly moving point particles that are not subject to interparticle interactions); a point particle is an idealization of particles heavily used in physics: it lacks spatial extension; being dimensionless, it does not take up space. So, even dead things are often too complicated for physicists! 27 Aug 2020
- To save energy animals go into hibernation or torpor. Some hummingbirds in South America go into torpor: a state of reduced metabolic activity and temperature that is not unlike hibernation, but only one night long. (Nature) 11 Sep 2020
Further Reading
- Ernst Mayr (2004) What makes Biology Unique? Considerations on the autonomy of scientific discipline. (a defence of the autonomy of biology). See my summary.
- Stuart Kauffman (2019) A World Beyond Physics: The Emergence and Evolution of Life. Stuart Kauffman is a theoretical biologist. Especially relevant is: Beyond Law: Biology Cannot Be Reduced to Physics in chapter 11. See my blog about the book (11 September 2020).
Postscript 25 Aug 2020
After writing this blog I discovered the views of theoretical biologist Robert Rosen:
The wikipedia page contains a rather detailed description of his theories about living systems and how they differ from physical systems. His book Life itself (2005) is still available at amazon. Large parts can be read at google books."By proposing a sound theoretical foundation for studying biological organisation, Rosen held that, rather than biology being a mere subset of the already known physics, it might turn out to provide profound lessons for physics, and also for science in general".
Interesting stuff!
ReplyDeleteReminds me of the following words by Einstein- to start with:
We understand more about the structure of
an atom, something that we do not directly experience, than
we do about how complex physical systems such as yourself
should arise and be capable of comprehending this page of
text in a meaningful way.
and:
One can best feel in dealing with living things how primitive physics
still is.
(Can't find the refs. So may be E never said this, but then it is well conceived anyway)
Hello (),
ReplyDeleteThanks for the nice quotes. I found the second on this page:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1796342140
It's a review of 'Essays on Life Itself'
by Robert Rosen
I did not know that book/author, but it looks interesting.
Have a nice day!
Hi Gert, a charming blog. Let me begin as always by clearing up a few false assumptions. I don't know of any physicist who believes that there exists a theory of everything, or that even such a thing could exist in principle. We have also not run out of problems to solve in the abiotic world. From dark matter, to the existence of a basis for the set of fundamental particles, to the unification of the forces, to to quantum gravity, to the non-linear emergence of new properties of material, there is still a tremendous amount of work for the traditional physicist who studies, as you put it, "dead things". What we do believe however, is that we have discovered all of the existent fundamental forces that are necessary to describe nature, at least locally (except, perhaps, a very weak force related to dark matter).
ReplyDeleteHowever, we physicists study not only abiotic or "dead things" but also biotic or live things. And this is not new. Thirty five years ago, when I was doing my PhD in nuclear physics, there already existed a department and graduate program in Biophysics at my university. As you know Crick was a physicist, and one of the first to study DNA, and that was almost 70 years ago.
Don't believe that physicist study only simple and dead things. You talk about the genomic complexity, with billions of nucleobases and billions of individual organisms. Physicists study such things as a drop of water which contains on the order of 10 to the 23 (10^23) particles (try to beat that you biologists!). We also study complex non-linear things like the Belousov-Zhabotinsky reactor system which contain billions upon billions upon billions ...etc. of interacting, reacting, and diffusing molecules. If you see this reactor system in operation, you would think that it was alive as there is time-dependent and space-dependent symmetry breaking (cells forming and multiplying). We also study the working of the goings on in living cells, like molecular motors and the ribosome. We do, and always have, studied both abiotic and biotic systems and we believe that we are legitimate in studying both of these because we believe that they both are subject to the exact same laws and symmetries of nature. To be continued ...
Sorry, I have to do this in parts because there is a unnecessarily short limit on the size of the comment allowed. You should try to fix this Gert.
ReplyDeleteSo, you believe that "Physics cannot explain how the physical object called 'mouse' maintains its temperature." Sorry to break the news to you Gert, but we have figured that out long ago! In the metabolic cycles of a mouse (like in the Belousov-Zhabotinsky reactor system with chemical reactions and diffusion) the chemical potential (potential energy in covalent bonding) stored within complex organic molecules that the mouse eats (carbohydrates, sugars, proteins, nucleic acids, etc.) is dissipated into heat and a small part of it into a directly useful form of energy, ATP, which the mouse can use to do work (move, eat, etc.). That heat of dissipation (exothermic reactions) keeps the mouse warm and that is necessary because almost all chemical reactions occur more rapidly at warm temperatures than at cold temperatures. So there you have it, already figured out by physicists/chemists a long time ago. I could even be more explicit and write out the Gibb's equation for you which describes exactly how the chemical potential energy stored in the food that the mouse eats gets converted into heat and work.
Now, it seems you are wondering (in more or less words) "What could be the utility of a mouse in the Thermodynamic Dissipation Theory of the Origin and Evolution of Life?". You ask (in more or less words) "why wouldn't a mouse just loose all of its heat as fast as possible to the environment and die?" The answer is that a mouse does not live in an isolated box. It lives on the surface of the Earth in an ecosystem which is receiving a constant flow of photons from the sun. The thermodynamic function of the mouse (and any living organism) is to dissipate this light into heat as rapidly as possible. It does this by playing its role in the biosphere which is to be a gardener for the plants. It spreads plant nutrients from one area to another, plants need phosphates and they need nitrogen among others. And how does it do this? It does it by leaving its excrement uniformly over its territory. When it dies, which is also a blessing to the plants (as long as the mouse left some babies behind) because the nutrients in its body get spread by the insects and bacteria that degrade it (and you have a very nice picture of exactly this above!). The mouse also spreads the seed of plants, also in its excrement, or by attachment transport. Animals thus make sure that the plants stay healthy and green and are spread over maximum area. And, of course it is the plants doing all the heavy dissipation, turning sunlight into heat. The direct dissipation of the chemical potential (food) into heat by the mouse is tiny in comparison. Without animals, plants would be very miserable at photon dissipation. You can do the experiment yourself. And, by the way, as the saying goes, "of mice and men", we are no different from mice in this regard.
We physicists are not "blind and deaf" with respect to the differences between the living and the dead. Both are two different stationary states of open thermodynamic systems, the former being out-of-equilibrium and the latter are in equilibrium with respect to their environment. The dead mouse is a collection of molecules in equilibrium, the live mouse is a collection of molecules cooperating (as in the case of a Belousov-Zhabotinsky reactor system) in an out-of-equilibrium process which is dissipating into heat the externally imposed thermodynamic potential which is the sunlight.
ReplyDeleteOf course biologists can work with physicists, there is no need for hostility. We physicists are not going to take away your work, and it's a fact that all theories, including Darwin's (and mine of course) need to be constantly updated to remain viable with our expanding knowledge. Many physicists read papers and books on biology, but very few biologists read papers or books on physics, principally because of the mathematics which helps physicists to be more concise but just confuses biologists. I have written what I think should be an easily understandable book for biologists on the physics of the origin and evolution of life and it is free. The mathematics can be skipped without great loss of understanding. I have put the mathematics in boxes to be ignored if you so choose. You can download my book free of charge from this web site; https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Karo_Michaelian
The Belousov-Zhabotinsky reactor. This example is actually out-of-equilibrium isolated system so it evolves towards equilibrium. If there is a constant inflow of reactants (food) and an outflow of products (excrement) the system stays "alive" indefinitely. I will look for a more "live" video of this abiotic reactor.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpyKSRo8Iec
Have fun investigating and stay out of equilibrium!
Hi Karo,
ReplyDeleteKaro wrote "Hi Gert, a charming blog.". Thank you! This is the first compliment you gave me! Thanks!
You start with the easy things. Are you going to attack to more difficult things?
The easy things: Belousov-Zhabotinsky reactor system, etc.
Karo wrote: "What we do believe however, is that we have discovered all of the existent fundamental forces that are necessary to describe nature".
Wrong: physicists cannot describe, let alone explain living things. Why? If a thing is governed completely by physical forces it is not living, it is a physical object.
On the other hand if a thing is has a control system, it is a living thing. This is not accidental. Having a control system is part of the definition of life. All living systems have control systems by definition. Therefore you cannot apply physical laws blindly to organisms. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what life is. Yes, physicists can study living things. DNA, molecular motors and the ribosomes. But that is quite another thing. Yes, Crick. Yes, Erwin Schrödinger's What is Life? But that does not change what I said above about control systems.
About complexity: in the draft of the blogpost I wrote complexity AND diversity. I regret deleting 'diversity'. Complexity is different from diversity. A drop of water contains only one species of molecule. It is not about numbers, but about different species of molecules. That is diversity. Complexity is a system with different species of molecules that interact with each other.
Easy things: Belousov-Zhabotinsky reactor system. I know about that system: it is nice and entertaining, I did watch the video. It is chemistry!
It differs from living things by
(1) initial conditions; are created by humans by combining Ferroin, Potqassium bromate, Cerium (IV) Ammnonium Nitrate, and Malonic Acid in the right concentrations.
(2) there is an external artifical boundary without the system would not work
(3) there is no inherent control system I suppose
(4) there is no reproduction, no sex, no heredity, no evolution.
Karo: "there is a unnecessarily short limit on the size of the comment allowed. You should try to fix this Gert."
It is not under my control!
Karo: "metabolic cycles of a mouse": it's chemistry! I have no problem with that. Chemists, biochemists can study parts of the system indeed.
Karo: "keeps the mouse warm and that is necessary because almost all chemical reactions occur more rapidly at warm temperatures":
what about cold-blooded animals?
Karo: "Gibb's equation for you which describes exactly how the chemical potential energy": chemistry indeed. No problem.
to be continued.
Karo, my compliments: you have created a blogger profile with photo! very good!
ReplyDeleteThank you both for the links
ReplyDeleteKaro
"of mice and men", we are no different from mice in this regard".
The point about 'reading and comprehending text in a meaningful way' (see above), is that we aren't different form mice in a lot of regards, but yet very different in a lot of other regards: we aren't dissipating all the light/photons/heat. Or are we?
(2) Karo wrote: "Now, it seems you are wondering (in more or less words) "What could be the utility of a mouse in the Thermodynamic Dissipation Theory of the Origin and Evolution of Life?". "
ReplyDeleteNow you are coming close to the hard questions. However, what follows is a somewhat old-fashioned layman ecology story ruined by teleological metaphors: 'utility of a mouse', 'The thermodynamic function of the mouse', 'Animals thus make sure that the plants stay healthy' it is all Aristotle-talk. Yes, ecology is science, but there are no goals in ecology. Ecologists study stability and disturbances of an ecosystem. Yes.
But: 'The thermodynamic function of the mouse': function? in physics? Do physical systems have a 'function'? Definition please! The function of the sun is to sustain the biosphere on earth!? Is defecating and urinating a 'function' of the mouse? It sounds like a joke: we live to defecate and urinate! That's why we are on earth. The purpose of life revealed.
Karo: '...in an out-of-equilibrium process...' yes, no problem. yes physics can describe living things as out-of-equilibrium systems. But they are more than accidental out-of-equilibrium systems. Interestingly, Gánti does not include "far-from-equilibrium" in his definition of life.
http://wasdarwinwrong.com/korthof66.htm
Why should out-of-equilibrium reproduce? does every out-of-equilibrium reproduce?
I wonder what follows from the description 'out-of-equilibrium' beyond and above what biologists already know such as all animals need food.
Thanks for giving your book free of charge. Is it the edition of March 2017? Could you give the link to the book pdf?
I'll try to stay out of equilibrium as long as possible!
have a nice day!
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303838932_Thermodynamic_Dissipation_Theory_of_the_Origin_and_Evolution_of_Life_Salient_characteristics_of_RNA_and_DNA_and_other_fundamental_molecules_suggest_an_origin_of_life_driven_by_UV-C_light
ReplyDeleteThanks,
ReplyDeletenow I have two links, one book.
But still no answer- no surprise either: I wasn't hinting at 'thermodynamic 'functions' of mice but of men!
It's the same thermodynamic function for both mice and men, to spread nutrients, to spread seeds, to pollinate, basically to be good gardeners of the plants (and cyanobacteria) so they can do their job of dissipating the solar energy best.
DeleteGert, "charmed" is how I felt after reading your blog knocking physicists for attempting to understand the meaning and workings of life. If you read yourself objectively, you will find that you employ the same kinds of subjective narratives and dis-qualifiers used by the religious clergy in their attacks on Darwin. You should be encouraging research on the origin of life, not discouraging it.
ReplyDeletePhysicists also study complexity which arises out of numbers and the non-linearity of systems (biotic or abiotic). We have a whole array of tools (formalisms) like non-eqiulibrium thermodynamics or irreversible statistical mechanics to treat these complex systems. Because of the complexity, or just shear numbers, we do necessarily have to make approximations and one can argue whether this or that approximation is valid in this or that situation, and these considerations are ongoing, but almost all physicists agree that we have discovered all of the fundamental laws of nature needed to begin an attempt at describing complex systems through these formalisms, both living and non-living systems. We do not need new laws, or any kind of vitalism or even as you mysteriously suggest a "control system" (I'm not sure what you mean here but feedback, both positive and negative, is a part of all non-linear systems) to understand living systems, we need good approximations to deal with the numbers and non-linearity. That work is ongoing.
If you don't believe that the known physical laws are sufficient for appling the formalisms for treating complexity in order to begin to understand living organisms, then what do you believe in? An undiscovered law? Or do I detect a hint of the mysterious or the divine in your words?
Living systems are like hurricanes. They are dissipatively structured, proliferated and evolved by the external potential which creates them and guides their evolution. They are not autonomous systems. Hurricanes are constructed by infrared light (thermal potentials) which arranges the molecules in their structure through hydrogen bonds. Life is constructed by visible and UV light which arranges molecules in their structure through basically covalent bonds. The function of both hurricanes and life is to dissipate their respective imposed thermodynamic potentials; infrared light and UV light from the sun respectively. Yes, life indeed does have a function, and it is thermodynamic, to dissipate, i.e. to turn some wavelength light into even longer wavelength light, and that is part of the second law of thermodynamics, and the reason behind the second law of thermodynamics is still being debated in physics, but the explanation that I like best is related to the expansion of the universe. I know Darwinists don't like to hear that life has a reason for being (only because then they would have to explain it) but if not, you have to assume something mysterious or divine about it, as I get from your words, but that is not science, so gets a zero for effort in my books.
Karo,
ReplyDeletethanks for your reply.
You did not yet reply to this: (I quote):
____________________________________________________
"Karo wrote: "What we do believe however, is that we have discovered all of the existent fundamental forces that are necessary to describe nature".
Wrong: physicists cannot describe, let alone explain living things. Why? If a thing is governed completely by physical forces it is not living, it is a physical object.
On the other hand if a thing is has a control system, it is a living thing. This is not accidental. Having a control system is part of the definition of life. All living systems have control systems by definition. Therefore you cannot apply physical laws blindly to organisms. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what life is. Yes, physicists can study living things. DNA, molecular motors and the ribosomes. But that is quite another thing. Yes, Crick. Yes, Erwin Schrödinger's What is Life? But that does not change what I said above about control systems.
About complexity: in the draft of the blogpost I wrote complexity AND diversity. I regret deleting 'diversity'. Complexity is different from diversity. A drop of water contains only one species of molecule. It is not about numbers, but about different species of molecules. That is diversity. Complexity is a system with different species of molecules that interact with each other.
Easy things: Belousov-Zhabotinsky reactor system. I know about that system: it is nice and entertaining, I did watch the video. It is chemistry!
It differs from living things by
(1) initial conditions; are created by humans by combining Ferroin, Potqassium bromate, Cerium (IV) Ammnonium Nitrate, and Malonic Acid in the right concentrations.
(2) there is an external artifical boundary without the system would not work
(3) there is no inherent control system I suppose
(4) there is no reproduction, no sex, no heredity, no evolution."
_______________________________________________________
If you are not familiar with control systems, study biology.
Karo,
ReplyDeletethink about this:
You are visiting a foreign country. Learn the language of that country. Learn biology. If you visit a foreign country and refuses to speak the language, that's fine with me, but then there is no communication possible.
I give you just one hint: homeostasis.
karo said
ReplyDelete"same thermodynamic function for both mice and men"
as mr Korthoff said: there is no function in physcics, Aristotelian language won't do.
Hint: try to read this in a meaningfull way: no difference in thermodynamisch function here? That's a selfdenying/refuting remark (look who's talking).
I'd say dear Albert was right.
Karo said "Living systems are like hurricanes."
ReplyDeleteThis is a sort of analogy, but is far too general. It doesn't give any details. It does not tell us any specific about life. For example: Are there millions of different species of hurricanes? Why does the huge difference exist between harvesters of sunlight (plants) and consumers of the first (animals)? Is there hurricane speciation? Are hurricanes part of a billion year 'tree-of-hurricanes' in an unbroken chain transmitting their genetic information from one generation to the next? Do hurricanes explain why there are males and females?
Do hurricanes explain the origin of life? Do hurricanes explain the origin of the genetic code? etc etc etc
So: what does the hurricane analogy tell biologists they did not know? Does it solve any of the current problems in biology?
Please be serious because these are serious questions! This is not a joke!
Gert, I thought you read my book? There are serious investigations on serious problems in biology treated from the perspective of non-equilibrium thermodynamics in my book. If you want the latest, go to my ResearchGate page. I cannot repeat everything here.
DeleteNot a hurricane, but
ReplyDelete"{...) a collection of molecules cooperating (as in the case of a Belousov-Zhabotinsky reactor system) in an out-of-equilibrium process which is dissipating into heat the externally imposed thermodynamic potential which is the sunlight"
In the meantime there is a system that is getting farther and farther from equilibrium than anyone system ever! This is not a joke either.
Karo, there is one thing I don't understand about photosynthesis but you are qualified to explain: Thermodynamic Limit of photosynthesis efficiency. You must be able to explain it to us because thermodynamics is your expertise and is to core of your theory. This statement intrigued me: "At the reaction centers, thermodynamics limit the amount of energy available to do photosynthetic work."
ReplyDelete(see: http://sippe.ac.cn/gh/2010%20Annual%20Report/22.pdf )
If there is a Thermodynamic Limit, it should part of your theory. Only then can you calculate what the photosynthetic efficiency theoretically can be. Only then can you claim that it is 'too low'. So, please help us out with this.
Gert, first of all, so your readers are clear, that statement about the "thermodynamic limit" is not attributed to me but to the interesting article you cite. Second of all, it seems that the authors are not physicists, but rather biologist, and therefore borrow a term from physics without really understanding it. In physics, the "thermodynamic limit" refers to requirement on the size of a system such that system contains a sufficient number of particles such that internal fluctuations are very small compared with the average values of the internal variables. If not, equilibrium thermodynamics simply cannot be applied. However, this is not the meaning intended by the authors of the article you cite. What the authors of the article appear to be referring to are the inefficiencies in any energy conversion system which imply that 100% energy conversion from one form of energy to another is not possible. Examples are loss of mechanical energy to friction, escape of some of the heat in a boiler to the environment, joule heating in the wires carrying electricity, and so on. The inefficiencies depend on the particular machine. For example, a machine employing super conducting wires will have much reduced joule heating loss than one with normal wires. One would not expect that you could turn sunlight into chemical energy (e.g. ATP) with 100% efficiency, however, one would expect nature, after 3.8 billion years, could have improved its efficiency beyond 1% if this efficiency were in fact somehow important to it, given that humans have obtained about 20% efficiencies in only a few years of studying the problem.
ReplyDeleteKaro, thanks for your explanation which helps a little bit. The next question is: Is the size of the photosynthetic system such that system contains a sufficient number of particles?
ReplyDeleteKaro, I need physical arguments and calculations to show that the efficiency is 'too low'. Is there some physical efficiency law that says photosynthetic efficiency is too low? Then show me. To my knowledge the only thing a physical law could do is forbid 100% efficiency. Nothing more.
At the moment your claim is based on your own personal authority: "I, Karo Michaelian, hereby solemnly declare that it too low." On what basis?
Your argument is an outsiders judgment "one would expect nature, after 3.8 billion years, could have improved its efficiency beyond 1% if this efficiency were in fact somehow important to it".
Above you wrote "the authors are not physicists," Very well. But you have no expertise in evolutionary biology. Neither are you a photosynthesis expert. conclusion: your 'too low' argument has no scientific value.
Furthermore, your argument "humans have obtained about 20% efficiencies" also shows you are neither an evolutionary biologist nor a photosynthesis expert. You could just as well claim that milk production efficiency in mammals in the wild (or for that matter humans) is far too low because modern dairy cows have much higher efficiencies. The comparison makes no sense. is flawed.
I understand that your theory 'requires' photosynthesis efficiency to be low. But you need independent objective facts to test your theory. Not biased subjective 'data'.
Karo,
ReplyDelete"Dissipation is the result of an irreversible process that takes place in homogeneous thermodynamic systems."
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissipation
Animals and plants are not homogeneous systems, so dissipation does not take place in animals and plants.
Sorry.
Karo, the statement "Dissipation is the result of an irreversible process that takes place in homogeneous thermodynamic systems" is the first sentence on the wikipedia page Dissipation and it looks like a definition. In the unlikely case it is totally wrong, you have to explain why. however, it may be right. In that case you certainly have to explain a lot. I think you cannot ignore this.
ReplyDeleteDon't believe everything you read on Wikipedia Gert. I have a chapter, Chapter 2, on dissipation in my book. It seems you wrote a blog about my book without even reading it!
ReplyDeleteKaro, why should I believe everything I read in your book?
ReplyDeleteKaro said "Don't believe everything you read on Wikipedia Gert."
ReplyDeleteWikipedia is a peer-reviewed system: everybody can correct mistakes. If there was serious mistake in the definition of dissipation, especially in the first sentence, it would have been corrected within a few days. Not so for your book.
Karo, could you please give the page number where you describe your own definition of dissipation and discuss the reason why you reject the official definition?
ReplyDeleteKaro, if you can't find the passage in your own book, how can I find it?
ReplyDeleteKaro, do you know the work of Stuart Kauffman? He is the author of several profound books about the origin of life. He is a theoretical biologist and knows physics. I would call him the Socrates of theoretical biology. I have read and reviewed several of his books and I am now reading his latest A World Beyond Physics (2019). This book is absolutely relevant to our current discussion. In short: biology is beyond physics. I hope to write about it soon. What do you think about his views?
DANK! Het is onbegrijpelijk dat het Journal of Theoretical Biology een (d)ergelijk artikel heeft gepubliceerd: het is van begin tot eind ID wat de klok slaat. Alle bekende ID-ers staan in de literatuur lijst (Dembski, Behe, etc). Je moet wel blind of bevooroordeeld zijn om dat over het hoofd te zien.
ReplyDeleteWat nog erger is: ik zie geen enkele waarschuwing in de online versie van het artikel:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022519320302071
Aan niets kun je zien dat het artikel controversieel is. Ik zie geen 'Disclaimer' van de redactie op de pagina van het artikel zelf.
De disclaimer staat hier:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022519320303118?via%3Dihub
MAAR ik zie de inhoud niet! Terwijl het ID artikel Open Access is.
Ik zie het niet! Ben ik nu blind?
PS According to Panda's Thumb the disclaimer' of the editors of the Journal is behind a paywall! How weird. The article is open access buy the disclaimer is not!
ReplyDeletePS I now see the link 'Disclaimer' on the original article. It is easy to overlook!
"publicatie blijkbaar een goede zaak"
DeleteZou het kunnen dat het een publiciteits stunt is, die veel aandacht en dus lezers trekt? Om zichzelf in de schijnwerpers te zetten? Iedereen blogt er over! Het is nieuws. Het is controversieel! Het is een schande! Wij zijn geen duf theoretisch tijdschrift hoor! Dus puur uit berekening.
Alternatief: de editors hebben het alle drie niet gelezen, maar over gelaten aan peer-reviewers.... lijkt mij onwaarschijnlijk.
Een redacteur, Denise Kirschner, meldt elders: "My Mission: To educate others and promote women, math and family values in the scientific community.": 'family values': conservatief christelijke waarden! Dat is verdacht!
ReplyDeleteHoi Bert. dat boek FREEDOM: The End Of The Human Condition van Jeremy Griffith kende ik niet. Tot mijn verbazing is het ebook gratis bij kobo.com en amazon. De papieren versie kost uiteraard wel geld. Maar een gratis non-fictie ebook van nog maar een paar jaar oud heb ik nog nooit meegemaakt. Heb het meteen gedownload.
ReplyDeleteBert, ja, "zet al je vooroordelen op zijn kop." dat doet Jeremy Griffith ook: Adam en Eva zijn niet die zondige mensen die ons hebben opgezadeld met de erfzonde, maar de hero's van het hele Genesis verhaal! Mooi gezegd.
ReplyDeleteTrouwens: ik vraag me af: zijn we nog steeds erfelijk belast met zonde NADAT Jezus aan het kruis is gestorven voor onze zonden? Maar dan is hij voor niets gestorven! toch?
Rutger Bregmans is een historicus, Jeremy Griffith is een bioloog. Ik heb wat zitten bladeren in zijn boek FREEDOM. Ik ben geschrokken van de manier waarop hij discussieert en bepaalde collega biologen aanvalt. Kijk, je kunt het hartgrondig oneens zijn met collega wetenschappers, maar om ze leugenaars te noemen gaat mij een stap te ver, dan ben je over een grens gegaan. Zoek op 'Wilson' in het boek (E.O. Wilson werkt niet) en je vindt bijvoorbeeld: "E. O. Wilson - that lord of lying ... liar ... antichrist ... deceiver ... ", etc. Als Griffith zo te werk gaat, dan hoeft het niet meer van mij... Wat kan hij dan nog voor mooie boodschap hebben die de moeite van het overdenken waard is?
ReplyDeleteBert, het komische van (het boek van) Jeremy Griffith is dat hij evolutiebioloog E. O. Wilson voor leugenaar, etc. uitmaakt om te betogen dat de mens van nature goed is!!! Ruzie maken! Schelden! om de menselijke natuur! hoe tragikomisch is dat!? Hij toont op z'n minst aan dat de mens een ruziemakende soort is. Altijd meningsverschillen. Misschien is dat de human condition...?
ReplyDeleteBert, interessant comment. de Nobelrpijs voor literatuur heb ik altijd vreemd gevonden. Dezelfde prijs voor fictie als non-fictie??? vreemd!
ReplyDeleteGriffith valt specifiek die evolutiebiologen aan, zeg maar de orthodox neo-Darwinisten als E O Wilson en George Williams, etc. die zich in bochten moeten wringen om altruisme te verklaren want 'survival of the fittest' produceert egoisten. Hij beschuldigt die evolutiebiologen dat ze de survival of the fittest misbruiken als excuus voor (hun eigen) egoïsme. op zich interessant om na te gaan hoe Griffith die biologen aanvalt en hoe zijn eigen theorie er dan uit ziet.
Ik heb William Golding -ondanks de Nobelprijs- niet gelezen (geen tijd voor fictie).
Is de mens van nature egoïstisch of altruïstisch? Een individu moet een minimale hoeveelheid egoïsme hebben om zichzelf in leven te houden. Ieder levend individu heeft zichzelf in leven gehouden door te eten en te drinken. Voor de overgrote meerderheid van mensen betekent eten dieren doden.
Ik gebruik al zo'n 10 jaar een kobo ereader met een scherm diameter van 17 cm = 6,6 inch., zwart-wit. Ik koop regelmatig ebooks. Ik vind het scherm aan de kleine kant, maar verder werkt hij goed. Opvallend (uniek?) is dat KOBO regelmatig de software van het apparaat update (via wifi). Het KOBO OS wordt dus onderhouden. Meestal een verbetering. Als er een apparaat bestaat met een groter scherm en in kleur dan zou ik die willen. De zoekfunctie is redelijk goed, varieert van update tot update. Het enige wat na al die jaren nog steeds niet echt soepel werkt is highlights maken. Het is nog steeds een struggle om ze te maken. Je zou een tweede apparaat kunnen aanschaffen met voldoende groot scherm om er naast te leggen.
Bert hier het begin van een essay van Rutger Bregman in de Correspondent van 27 okt 2020:
ReplyDelete"Een paar jaar geleden was ik uitgenodigd voor de zomerborrel van uitgeverij De Bezige Bij. Het was een prachtige, zonovergoten middag in de binnentuin van het monumentale pand aan de Van Miereveldstraat in Amsterdam, en ik liep er een beetje beduusd rond. De borrel bleek een who-is-who van progressief Amsterdam. Vooraanstaande denkers en schrijvers, grote namen die ik nog kende van mijn literatuurlijst, liepen hier zomaar rond.
Na de eerste drankjes was het tijd voor het diner. Op het menu: asperges met aardappelen en ham. Ik eet geen vlees en was dus een beetje ongelukkig met het bord dat voor mijn neus werd geschoven. Ik keek om me heen, maar was blijkbaar de enige. Ik vroeg de serveerder of er ook een vegetarische optie was. ‘U eet liever vis?’
Er was een ongemakkelijke stilte om me heen gevallen. Ik nipte aan mijn drankje terwijl de rest van de tafel begon met eten en er in de keuken iets voor me werd bedacht. Hier was ik dan, met de intellectuele elite van Nederland, met literaire reuzen die dikke, doorwrochte boeken schreven over de grootste uitdagingen van onze tijd, van klimaatverandering tot ongelijkheid. En ik was de enige die geen dieren at. "