MIT Physicist Has Idea About Why We Exist

#1
n_huffhines

n_huffhines

What's it gonna cost?
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
84,567
Likes
50,083
#1
Interesting

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.

“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.
Click to expand...

Groundbreaking Idea Of Life's Origin - Business Insider
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#4
#4
Makes sense.

So the meaning of life is to repurpose energy.
 
#7
#7
I've been expecting something similar to this for awhile. It might get real interesting once the experimental data comes in.
 
#8
#8
PKT_VOL said:
I've been expecting something similar to this for awhile. It might get real interesting once the experimental data comes in.
Click to expand...

Use to if I lean a stick against a wall eventually it will end up on the other side. Now if I add some light it will come to life. Lol
 
#9
#9
govols/cc said:
Use to if I lean a stick against a wall eventually it will end up on the other side. Now if I add some light it will come to life. Lol
Click to expand...

His actual theory itself isn't that important (unless the experimental results come back in support).

It is much more important that scientists, specifically mathematicians/physicists/bio physicists are actively trying to figure out the underlying laws which govern biology.

In other words, it is refreshing to see that the misguided idea that biology is ruled by randomness (rather than ignorance of specifics) is finally showing signs of dying.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#10
#10
PKT_VOL said:
His actual theory itself isn't that important (unless the experimental results come back in support).

It is much more important that scientists, specifically mathematicians/physicists/bio physicists are actively trying to figure out the underlying laws which govern biology.

In other words, it is refreshing to see that the misguided idea that biology is ruled by randomness (rather than ignorance of specifics) is finally showing signs of dying.
Click to expand...


I guess. It's kinda pointless though since it'll be impossible to prove. Just another theory.
 
#11
#11
govols/cc said:
I guess. It's kinda pointless though since it'll be impossible to prove. Just another theory.
Click to expand...

Nothing is ever proven. However, from the article it is testable (falsifiable) and a physicist at Harvard is designing an experiment to test.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#12
#12
PKT_VOL said:
Nothing is ever proven. However, from the article it is testable (falsifiable) and a physicist at Harvard is designing an experiment to test.
Click to expand...

Do you honestly believe this and think it's gonna work? To speak of it theoretically is one thing to see it actually applied is another. I give it a probability of zero.
 
#13
#13
govols/cc said:
Do you honestly believe this and think it's gonna work? To speak of it theoretically is one thing to see it actually applied is another. I give it a probability of zero.
Click to expand...

What are you asking specifically? Whether the theory will be falsified or whether he and hopefully other scientists are on the right track?
 
#16
#16
PKT_VOL said:
What are you asking specifically? Whether the theory will be falsified or whether he and hopefully other scientists are on the right track?
Click to expand...

I'm saying do you believe these guys are gonna spontaneously produce any living organism with a flashlight and math?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#19
#19
I'm looking forward to him putting his theory into practice. Life should be easy to create now that he has the math.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#20
#20
Just don't see how any kind of experiment, even ultra small scale could produce any kind of meaningful results. The one variable that can't be simulated is time, and the earth's life path or whatever it is called has a several billion year head start. His experiments could be set up perfectly and his theory might be sound, and he'll never get any empirical data to support it because it could take 15 generations. Just seems futile. But then again, I am only vaguely aware of the intricacies of his theory. So who knows for sure?
 
#21
#21
So? What else is new? They didn't write "May the Good Lord shine a light on you" just to be exercising their crayon.
 
#24
#24
govols/cc said:
Did you have to read between the lines or something because that's the gist of what was said?
Click to expand...

You're a fool if your expectation is that we shine a flashlight on some water and get a christmas tree.

The idea is that we could observe some molecular restructuring as a result into a more organized state. Something that could eventually become RNA and lead to life.

If this occurred spontaneously, it would completely shoot down the "second law of thermodynamics" argument that never held water to begin with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top