from the it's-life-jim-but-not-as-we-know-it dept.
From the standpoint of physics, there is one essential difference between living things and inanimate clumps of carbon atoms: The former tend to be much better at capturing energy from their environment and dissipating that energy as heat. Jeremy England, a 31-year-old assistant professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has derived a mathematical formula that he believes explains this capacity. The formula, based on established physics, indicates that when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life.
According to Mr. England life is inevitable property of matter when subjected to the right conditions. It's not invalidating Darwinian evolution, but provides an underlying foundation of how it could start. I must admit I'm quite fascinated by this. If Mr. England can eventually show proof, it might make life a much easier phenomenon to find in our universe.
Article is at Quanta Magazine - A New Physics Theory of Life
Scientific American - A New Physics Theory of Life
At the heart of England’s idea is the second law of thermodynamics, also known as the law of increasing entropy or the “arrow of time.” Hot things cool down, gas diffuses through air, eggs scramble but never spontaneously unscramble; in short, energy tends to disperse or spread out as time progresses. Entropy is a measure of this tendency, quantifying how dispersed the energy is among the particles in a system, and how diffuse those particles are throughout space. It increases as a simple matter of probability: There are more ways for energy to be spread out than for it to be concentrated. Thus, as particles in a system move around and interact, they will, through sheer chance, tend to adopt configurations in which the energy is spread out. Eventually, the system arrives at a state of maximum entropy called “thermodynamic equilibrium,” in which energy is uniformly distributed. A cup of coffee and the room it sits in become the same temperature, for example. As long as the cup and the room are left alone, this process is irreversible. The coffee never spontaneously heats up again because the odds are overwhelmingly stacked against so much of the room’s energy randomly concentrating in its atoms.
(Score: 1) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 17 2014, @05:23AM
Thank you for the big paragraph explaining what entropy is that has nothing to do with the reputed new discovery.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by dlb on Wednesday December 17 2014, @06:31AM
(Score: 2) by khakipuce on Wednesday December 17 2014, @12:55PM
It amuses me to think that burning carbon is our thermodynamic destiny. As you say we are in a back-eddy and the trees are busy tying up energy from the sun which otherwise would radiate into space. So in the small thermodynamic niche between the sun and trees we inevitably evolved to burn down the trees, dig up the coal and pump the oil so that the universe will reach thermal equilibrium a tiny bit quicker.
(Score: 2) by TK on Wednesday December 17 2014, @04:45PM
There's a story by Philip K. Dick about a more evolved group of humans with hyper intelligence who believe their purpose is to convert all matter in the universe into a uniform slag. Maybe he was onto something.
The fleas have smaller fleas, upon their backs to bite them, and those fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum
(Score: 2) by Non Sequor on Thursday December 18 2014, @01:54AM
Sounds like a party. Count me in!
Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday December 17 2014, @10:13PM
Over-all flow is entropy
The same thing struck me in this paragraph from TFA:
The formula, based on established physics, indicates that when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy.
The entropy is already prevalent in a random bunch of atoms.
At first blush, adding energy, should at most, heat them, and disperse them farther, rather then causing them to organize, because organization is pretty much the antithesis of entropy. Probably this is due to "language polution" where entropy has become a synonym for disorganization in popular culture.
TFA again...
“You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant,” England said.
Sorry, I'm reserving the right to be surprised.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 17 2014, @05:59AM
Sticking "MIT" or "physics" in front of bullshit don't make it any less stanky.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Wednesday December 17 2014, @07:48AM
Whereas a pejorative post by an Anonymous Coward is the gold standard of incontrovertible truth...
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 1) by deathlyslow on Wednesday December 17 2014, @06:42AM
First I'm not a scientist. So the summary says that from a physics standpoint we are only different from inanimate object because we can use energy better, and then goes on to use examples of temperature changes. How does that factor into exotherms who can't regulate themselves. If they are at a "good" temp for them, they are effectively no different than carbon? Help me understand this.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday December 17 2014, @04:38PM
Even exotherms generate heat, they just don't come equipped with a thermostat. Essentially you burn (oxidize) the sugars and fats in your food, converting the energy to mechanical work (muscle movement) and heat. Where you differ from an exotherm is that your body is also equipped with mechanisms to convert food to heat without net mechanical work (the most extreme being shivering, where self-defeating mechanical work is performed in order to harvest the waste heat), along with a thermal self-monitoring system that regulates those "heaters". Oh, and I suppose there's the cooling systems as well - exotherms generally don't have those either, but that's getting even further off topic.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by gordo on Wednesday December 17 2014, @07:12AM
> The coffee never spontaneously heats up again because the odds are overwhelmingly stacked against so much of the room’s energy randomly concentrating in its atoms.
I read the paragraph ending in the above sentence and I believe I understand it, at least as a layman. What's missing is the part where it's followed by several additional sentences explaining how life is in any way a plausible or likely way for energy to dissipate.
(Score: 1) by dexcheque on Wednesday December 17 2014, @01:37PM
I wonder if it has something to do with the shadowlands where order and entropy meet?
We know there are patterns of behavior in the universe around us -- it's one of the things we humans are notorious for: We identify a pattern of some little piece of the universe, and then sharpen the end of it, and jab the next little piece of the universe with it. Simply, we run around telling the universe what it's supposed to be.
But we also know that energy spreads out. So the idea that the universe just wraps into more and more complex patterns in order to preserve, well, order -- that just kind of appeals to me. Regardless of which force could end up on top.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 17 2014, @07:45AM
What he's saying is not quite the same thing as the asymptotically-increasing entropy of a closed system.
In the case of hot coffee in a cold room, the heat in the coffee flows into the room's air. Eventually the two are at the same temperature, then stay there.
The earth and sun together are not a closed system. We are surrounded by interstellar space.
The sun heats up one side of the earth, but the night sky cools down the other side. As the earth rotates, the hot side becomes the cold side.
In the long run yes we will achieve thermal equilibrium, about four billion years from now when the sun runs out of hydrogen. That's gonna totally suck.
I think the term is "homeostasis". An example is what we're seeing right now, where carbon dioxide is heating the atmosphere, so the polar caps melt, which cools the atmosphere, also carbon dioxide is highly soluble in water.
Unfortunately part of this homestasis, is that it's going to kill a lot of people so that we stop making so much carbon dioxide, and other greenhouse gases such as methane.
This is known as The Gaia Hypothesis. More or less you can screw up mother earth as badly as you want, she will find a way to repair herself.
But that doesn't mean humanity will survive.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 18 2014, @04:48AM
i guess i believe in the gaia hypothesis, sort of, but i don't ascribe any intelligence or animus to the earth itself. its just a simple more or less closed system. action, reaction. man makes earth inhospitable for life. man's population decreases. earth becomes more hospitable. man's population increases. repeat. so, in a sense, the earth repairs herself. however, we are like superbugs. as long as there is air to breath, water to drink, and other life to eat, no matter how polluted, at least some small number of humans will survive long enough to reproduce before they die.
the earth, a large rock 3 doors down from the sun, will always survive unless something smashes it to pieces. the question is can it become as barren as mars? man alone can't do that without doing something like waging full-scale nuclear war. sure, we can make earth a really shitty place to live. the shittier we make it, the more our population dwindles and the rate of shittiness acceleration decreases. however, depending on the lag time between our actions and their consequences, the giant 'man-made environmental turd' may still have a lot of forward momentum. the sooner we suffer, the better. the longer we put it off, the closer we come to extinction.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by brocksampson on Wednesday December 17 2014, @08:24AM
Systems that follow the second law of thermodynamics as described in this summary are the opposite of alive. A criterion of all living systems is that they are out of equilibrium and dissipating energy to maintain a low entropy state. Organisms essentially burn fuel (from food or the sun or whatever) to maintain their own existence by temporarily staving off the natural tenancy of systems to seek equillibrium, i.e., death. (To be clear, this misunderstanding is a failure of the science journalism; I'm sure Dr. England has a better grasp on the subject.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 18 2014, @10:13AM
Exactly, a biochemist once told me that the reason biochemistry is so difficult is that the entire system is working to avoid equilibrium. If a cell has reached equilibrium it's dead.
(Score: 2) by TheLink on Thursday December 18 2014, @11:08AM
By what's mentioned in the summary, fire is alive.
As per the summary text:
it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life.
It even grows and reproduces itself (sparks start other fires). If there's enough combustible material somewhere, wait long enough and the odds are it will burn up. And the whole thing will burn up.
tldr; as long as something reproduces you see more of it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 17 2014, @08:42AM
If this challenges anyone's work, that would seem to be Alexander Oparin. [wikipedia.org]
Stanley Miller is also mentioned there.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday December 17 2014, @09:40PM
The way I see, the new theory attempts to come with something that would act as theoretical physics background to Oparin's/Miller's.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 18 2014, @01:12AM
I think you're closer to the mark than I am.
So, the new notion doesn't compete with Darwin or Oparin, but goes back in time before either of their ideas come into play.
I can go with that.
-- gewg_
(Score: 4, Informative) by pkrasimirov on Wednesday December 17 2014, @09:52AM
(Score: 2) by sudo rm -rf on Wednesday December 17 2014, @10:14AM
A few days ago, this article was mentioned in a comment by c0lo here on Soylent [soylentnews.org]. I found it quite interesting and appreciate it very much that it made its way to the frontpage.
On topic: As there already seem to be ideas how to test England's interpretation in the lab, I hope we will hear about the results.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 17 2014, @01:32PM
I think that if we look at dead vs alive matter then they both could be mapped as a line on x-y grid that is increasin enthropy over time.
whilst the line for dead matter is linearly rising I belive the one for "life" dips at certain points.
this "dipping" feature can be attributed to "looking ahead" of the living matter, forgoing instant enthropy increase to maybe be placed into a situation later on where "a more better enthropy increse can occure".
so even though the enthropy increase line dips for the living system the integration of the whole line gives a higher value then for "linear dead matter"
queztion still remains what is the "spark" that allows dead matter to "look ahead" thus turn8ng it into alive matter :)
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday December 17 2014, @02:30PM
Ah, yes, that is true as long as a student left sweeping up that room after a particularly unsuccessful party doesn't immerse an atomic vector plotter in it, connect that to a Bambleweeny 57 Sub-Meson Brain, and work out exactly how improbable that is.
Washington DC delenda est.