Notices
Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: An energy question

  1. #1 An energy question 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    42
    What would be considered the energy of life? Would it be strong force, weak force, electromagnetism, gravitational force, something else? OR is it a force/counter force type typing.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Shouldn't this be in the Pseudoscience or Philosophy section?

    Sorry, I have no answer.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    The way you're asking the question suggests the answer would be "there is no such thing". On the other hand, the chemical processes that keep living things going basically run on electromagnetism.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    42
    Here is my thinking. A cell is a machine that does stuff, that cell is made up of of atoms and such. However for what cells do they need a code book, and of also what would bring them together to form a cell, what would cause the specific arrangement of particles that would lead to a complex machine such as a cell.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    171
    Are you talking about Abiogenesis? The formation of cells from non-living, albeit organic, materials.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Brasil
    Posts
    21
    movement is energy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Haasum
    Are you talking about Abiogenesis? The formation of cells from non-living, albeit organic, materials.
    Could you gimme a quick explanation of what that is in a bit more details?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by blacknamed
    Quote Originally Posted by Haasum
    Are you talking about Abiogenesis? The formation of cells from non-living, albeit organic, materials.
    Could you gimme a quick explanation of what that is in a bit more details?
    Abiogenesis is the organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter.

    Here are two nice introductions to the idea:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYD...eature=related
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    There is no force that exists within living matter that doesn't in non-living matter. The closest would be that living matter is more chemically active, and chemistry is mainly an expression of the electromagnetic force.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by blacknamed
    Quote Originally Posted by Haasum
    Are you talking about Abiogenesis? The formation of cells from non-living, albeit organic, materials.
    Could you gimme a quick explanation of what that is in a bit more details?
    Abiogenesis is the organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter.

    Here are two nice introductions to the idea:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYD...eature=related
    Thanks this is exactly what I was looking for. This is a very interesting idea. I thought that a few things where left wanting, but a good part of my wandering was satisfied. Thanks
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    42
    At the same time maybe I'm thinking a bit too hard on the idea of "living" organism. From the little bit I read about Nucleotide, and a few other things. It would seem they stem from bonding of Hydrogen ions, and oxygen, and others. If that be the case my next thought would be how come they group together.... blah each new thing summons a bunch new questions. I can't wait till we can have a better view of the "small world"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by blacknamed
    Thanks this is exactly what I was looking for. This is a very interesting idea. I thought that a few things where left wanting, but a good part of my wandering was satisfied. Thanks
    You're quite welcome.

    What did you think was "left wanting?" If you can summarize your question, we might be able to summarize the answer. 8)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by blacknamed
    Thanks this is exactly what I was looking for. This is a very interesting idea. I thought that a few things where left wanting, but a good part of my wandering was satisfied. Thanks
    You're quite welcome.

    What did you think was "left wanting?" If you can summarize your question, we might be able to summarize the answer. 8)
    The cause of their replication, their ability to evolve, the idea seems to say that certain chemicals got together and then started living. I mean how does lumping together lead to replication. Selective replication at that..... For me it does not answer my question of where nothing becomes something. That is for example Oxygen is not a living organism. Yet a different combination of Hydrogen and Carbon makes living organism. Maybe my problem comes from how I look at the question; I suppose my view of how "life" is alive makes very hard for me to fully understand.

    It like if you have a computer program with a protocol to upgrade itself base of the complexity of the task it must accomplish, after a few years of self improvements that computer could obtain for all instance and person the statute of "living". However there is an initial programming that leads to this.

    So where does the initial programming for lifeís machine come from? I mean the job that cells do is no simple stuff, so why do they do it, how do they do it, how did they start doing it?

    The interaction of particles occurs because of the forces that move them, from what I know they canít make anything happen. Living organism make stuff happen. I feel like I am repeating myself so I will stop at that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by blacknamed
    The cause of their replication, their ability to evolve, the idea seems to say that certain chemicals got together and then started living. I mean how does lumping together lead to replication.
    First, let me say that it might help you to stop thinking about the division between life and non-life as some hard and absolute line of demarcation. It's actually quite gray and fuzzy.

    Second, the answer to your question resides in chemistry, and the laws of chemistry tend to come from the laws of physics. It's simply how the universe works.


    Quote Originally Posted by blacknamed
    Selective replication at that..... For me it does not answer my question of where nothing becomes something. That is for example Oxygen is not a living organism. Yet a different combination of Hydrogen and Carbon makes living organism. Maybe my problem comes from how I look at the question; I suppose my view of how "life" is alive makes very hard for me to fully understand.
    And, I think you're probably right. There really is no clear line between life and non-life. It's a rather arbitrary and completely made-up human concept to help us better categorize things. When you look closely, though, at these questions of what is and what is not life, it's really not quite so clear. Indeed... even us humans with all of our complex machinery and complex cells are really just balls of "stuff" that follows basic chemical and physical principles. It's a fascinating area of study.



    Quote Originally Posted by blacknamed
    It like if you have a computer program with a protocol to upgrade itself base of the complexity of the task it must accomplish, after a few years of self improvements that computer could obtain for all instance and person the statute of "living". However there is an initial programming that leads to this.

    So where does the initial programming for lifeís machine come from?
    Well, there really is no goal with evolution. There is no direction... no programming. There are definitely certain trends which can be found, especially when you look only at a specific geographic area, but the long and short of it is this...

    Things mutate randomly. Sometimes those mutations will be good, sometimes they will be bad. Further, the "goodness" and "badness" of the mutation is completely dependent on the environment... what's good in one place may be bad in another, and vice versa... what's bad in one place may be good in another (just look at sickle cell anemia... it comes from the same mutation which helps protect people from malaria... people outside of africa who are less prone to malaria more often get sick from this mutation with the sickle cell anemia, but people inside of africa tend to do well when they have this mutation since it helps protect them from malaria).

    Either way, those with mutations which are beneficial tend to do SLIGHTLY better than those who do not have that same mutation, and through years and years and years... the ones who can "do" better makeup larger and larger portions of the population as time goes on, as they can out perform the others who perform less well... and the process then continues with each new generation.


    Quote Originally Posted by blacknamed
    I mean the job that cells do is no simple stuff, so why do they do it, how do they do it, how did they start doing it?
    Well, as you already saw in the first link I shared in a previous post (the "Origin of Life - Made Easy" video), the modern cell with all of it's cool bits and complex pieces didn't just shit itself into existence. It is the surviving relative of all of the lesser cells which came before it.... just as those cells were the surviving relatives of the lesser ones which came before them...

    It's really hard to understand the eons though which this happened, but each new generation builds on the successes of the generations which came before it... in agonizingly slow simple iterative steps. It's just that since humans live... on average... only 40-70 years, we struggle quite a lot to fathom what can be done in millions and billions of years.


    If you trust my suggestions, and you enjoyed the short videos on abiogenesis which I shared above, you may also like this one. It sort of gets at the root of what I'm trying to say.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98OTsYfTt-c
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    There is no force that exists within living matter that doesn't in non-living matter. The closest would be that living matter is more chemically active, and chemistry is mainly an expression of the electromagnetic force.
    That's not necessarily true. The fact we don't know about other forces doesnn't mean they don't exist. Now I agree it your statement is likely true. In science however, such a statement should never be used without a level of science to prove it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    There is no force that exists within living matter that doesn't in non-living matter. The closest would be that living matter is more chemically active, and chemistry is mainly an expression of the electromagnetic force.
    That's not necessarily true. The fact we don't know about other forces doesn't mean they don't exist. Now I agree your statement is likely true. In science however, such a statement should never be used without a level of science to prove it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Senior Booms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    The perceptual schematic known as earth
    Posts
    361
    Energy for life = ATP (adenosine triphosphate)

    ATP = Chemical

    therefore

    Energy for Life = Chemical Energy
    It's not how many questions you ask, but the answers you get - Booms

    This is the Acadamy of Science! we don't need to 'prove' anything!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    297
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    There is no force that exists within living matter that doesn't in non-living matter. The closest would be that living matter is more chemically active, and chemistry is mainly an expression of the electromagnetic force.
    That's not necessarily true. The fact we don't know about other forces doesnn't mean they don't exist. Now I agree it your statement is likely true. In science however, such a statement should never be used without a level of science to prove it.
    In science, when statements are made, what is usually meant is: the probability is so high that hardly any doubt is left. It just easier to state it as fact without cumbersome and unnecessarily complex formulations.

    In this case, despite a lot of research no-one even found any scientific evidence of even a shadow of a hint of an unknown force which would be unique to life. MagiMaster didn't risk much by simplifying to: "there is no such force."

    I'm pretty sure we wouldn't survive without any of the four fundamental forces. Without strong interaction or electromagnetism, we would instantly cease to exist. I'm not sure about weak interaction. We might survive without gravity for a few moments.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Well, yeah. I suppose I should have qualified that, but the same qualifications would pretty much apply to any statement in science. That, and laypeople tend to take such qualifications as waffling or uncertainty.

    On a side note, I think the most immediate effect of losing gravity would be that all the air would drift away from the Earth. I don't know enough about the weak force to say what that'd do.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Well, yeah. I suppose I should have qualified that, but the same qualifications would pretty much apply to any statement in science. That, and laypeople tend to take such qualifications as waffling or uncertainty.

    On a side note, I think the most immediate effect of losing gravity would be that all the air would drift away from the Earth. I don't know enough about the weak force to say what that'd do.
    When you get down to strong force/weak force. If they where gone then theoretically we would dissipate nothing to hold particles to together mean we go with them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •