Science!! Fucking magnets, how do they work?

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
even the former seems pretty bizarre to me, (but the way England seems to put it, its likely not even that rare of an occurrence in our universe... which if he is right it still does nothing for how bizarre it seems to me).
You're not alone in feeling that way, for certain. That's why the scientific method is often controversial, as you must be aware, but also why it is so powerful. What seems intuitive knowledge often turns out to be incorrect.

Much of the theistic arguments for things like a god are born from this inability to bridge the gap from "I intuitively feel this way" to "My observations are this other way"

I'm certain life is incredibly common in this universe, and it probably appears in places we wouldn't expect at all. I mean we find bacteria inside lava vents and in extremely cold temperatures, in pools of acid, and all sorts of places, just here on Earth.

But intelligent life probably is fairly rare. It (intelligence) may very well be a terminal trait, hence Fermi's Paradox.

One of the best videos I've seen on Fermi's Paradox and how it might relate to the issue of intelligent life is this one

 

reavor

I'm With HER ♀
<Bronze Donator>
5,159
17,847
As long as purely chemicals are doing the job, without some sort of device that we've designed to examine and determine if the molecule being selected for is the exact proper one, there will probably always be some error built into the system.

That's why its good that the primary amino acids for life can also be formed from several different combinations of base pairings.
There are always possibilities for error, whether it is an enzyme putting nucleic acids in a certain order, or a person standing by a conveyor belt assessing product quality. It's because it's all chemistry in the end, nanobots too. They might decrease error in DNA replication, but not completely abolish it. Just as current enzymes have evolved to decrease error.

There are also a lot of theories about the way that living material organizes and retains and distributes energy that point to the inevitability of living organisms as a way to better harness the energy from the Sun and elsewhere that contribute to the concept of life being an inevitable outcome of the general rules of organic chemistry.
I think you can even expand that to that the chemistry of carbon atoms and their subsequent polymerization is an inevitable outcome of thermodynamic laws.
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
There are always possibilities for error, whether it is an enzyme putting nucleic acids in a certain order, or a person standing by a conveyor belt assessing product quality. It's because it's all chemistry in the end, nanobots too. They might decrease error in DNA replication, but not completely abolish it. Just as current enzymes have evolved to decrease error.
Right I wasn't as precise in my language as I could have been. We can't completely remove errors, even with machines, but reduce them to one in a very large number of attempts might be an improvement over what we have naturally. I can't remember the exact rate of chance for any mutation to occur in DNA during replication, I'm sure its fairly low, all things considered.

I think you can even expand that to that the chemistry of carbon atoms and their subsequent polymerization is an inevitable outcome of thermodynamic laws.
Yep. That's what me and pharmakos are discussing, actually.
 

pharmakos

soʞɐɯɹɐɥd
<Bronze Donator>
16,305
-2,234
You're not alone in feeling that way, for certain. That's why the scientific method is often controversial, as you must be aware, but also why it is so powerful. What seems intuitive knowledge often turns out to be incorrect.

Much of the theistic arguments for things like a god are born from this inability to bridge the gap from "I intuitively feel this way" to "My observations are this other way"

I'm certain life is incredibly common in this universe, and it probably appears in places we wouldn't expect at all. I mean we find bacteria inside lava vents and in extremely cold temperatures, in pools of acid, and all sorts of places, just here on Earth.

But intelligent life probably is fairly rare. It (intelligence) may very well be a terminal trait, hence Fermi's Paradox.

One of the best videos I've seen on Fermi's Paradox and how it might relate to the issue of intelligent life is this one

yeah, i suppose thats where i've been subconsciously going with it -- theism. i saw you say earlier in this thread that you're agnostic with an atheistic leaning. i'm agnostic with a theistic leaning. might be why our ideas aren't meshing right now.

that is an excellent Fermi Paradox explanation btw. my 12-year-old nephew is starting to get pretty nerdy, i'm going to show him that. thanks.

my personal guess re: why haven't we talked to any aliens (as far as we know) is that aliens probably avoid Earth. whether based on moral principles or based on some galactic political treaty. humans are a vicious, vengeful, war mongering, meat eating culture. we as a whole harbor very little respect for other lifeforms on our own planet, and i doubt we would be much nicer to extraterrestrial lifeforms (unless they had their ray guns pointing at our heads). i don't blame aliens for avoiding us.
 

Ambiturner

Ssraeszha Raider
16,043
19,530
you could have skipped most of that, hodj (i'm a chemist).



uh, no, it definitely should be surprising. lifeless matter given enough time will eventually turn into complex life forms like human beings? that is an INCREDIBLY bizarre idea, and the fact that Jeremy England is trying to act like its no big deal really reeks of him just trying to sound cool to other scientists.



kinda like the old Douglas Adams argument. Adams says that if the universe is infinitely large, then anything that could possibly exist must exist somewhere within it. its a flawed argument that can be applied to any unlikely outcome. and its not flawed just because the universe isn't actually infinitely large. (well, depending on your definition -- the empty space that makes up the universe might be infinitely large, but there is a finite amount of matter in the universe with which actual things can happen)

how about a reductio ad absurdium. i could say that since this cosmic lottery has been running for billions of years and there are billions of planets and yada yada yada, then somewhere on one of those planets at some point in time an exact copy of me has gotten a blowjob from an exact copy of Kim Kardashian.

it doesn't matter how you slice it up -- the origin of life is INCREDIBLY bizarre.
Not exactly sure what your point is here. Are you saying it's incredibly unlikely that it will become humans? Because that part's definitely true.

Now the odds that life at all would form at some point with all the ingredients floating around for billions of years? I have to agree with Hodj on it being inevitable.
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
yeah, i suppose thats where i've been subconsciously going with it -- theism. i saw you say earlier in this thread that you're agnostic with an atheistic leaning. i'm agnostic with a theistic leaning. might be why our ideas aren't meshing right now.

that is an excellent Fermi Paradox explanation btw. my 12-year-old nephew is starting to get pretty nerdy, i'm going to show him that. thanks.

my personal guess re: why haven't we talked to any aliens (as far as we know) is that aliens probably avoid Earth. whether based on moral principles or based on some galactic political treaty. humans are a vicious, vengeful, war mongering, meat eating culture. we as a whole harbor very little respect for other lifeforms on our own planet, and i doubt we would be much nicer to extraterrestrial lifeforms (unless they had their ray guns pointing at our heads). i don't blame aliens for avoiding us.
That entire youtube group, kerzgetstalth or however you spell it, is fantastic for kids. My son and I have watched like so many of those videos together lately.

I really think probably intelligence leads to extinction past a certain point in most species. The Behavioral Sink of John Calhoun goes a long way to explain why that is. We create utopic conditions in terms of food and such, and populations explode, leading to a decline in space and unequal distribution of resources, leading to eventual colony collapse.

How Mice Turned Their Private Paradise Into A Terrifying Dystopia
 

pharmakos

soʞɐɯɹɐɥd
<Bronze Donator>
16,305
-2,234
I think you can even expand that to that the chemistry of carbon atoms and their subsequent polymerization is an inevitable outcome of thermodynamic laws.
did you guys hear that there's likely buckyballs in space?Buckyballs discovered in interstellar space | Ars Technica

still (beating a dead horse here perhaps) there's a huge logical leap required to get from primordial proteins to RNA/DNA-mediated cellular life.
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Would it blow your mind if I said life probably doesn't necessarily require DNA/RNA to happen?

Like some other, similar, but different molecules could probably be involved elsewhere in the universe.

What area of chemistry did you specialize in (just wondering)?
 

pharmakos

soʞɐɯɹɐɥd
<Bronze Donator>
16,305
-2,234
eh i'm still just stuck in academia, haven't really done anything too exciting. my ultimate goal is pharmaceutical research, though.


i figured i might get a response like that when i mentioned cellular life. there's a few different definitions of "life" floating around which i suppose complicates any discussion. currently, science doesn't even typically recognize things like viruses as being life forms. ultimately i suppose there probably isn't some hard line that once crossed you could consider a given group of molecules to be a lifeform.
 

pharmakos

soʞɐɯɹɐɥd
<Bronze Donator>
16,305
-2,234
p.s. talking about the Fermi Paradox got me listening to this old Tub Ring album named Fermi Paradox. off-topic, but its good shit. almost sounds like something Charlie Kelley would write. =p

 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
eh i'm still just stuck in academia, haven't really done anything too exciting. my ultimate goal is pharmaceutical research, though.
Cool, good to know. You'll do well in terms of employment and shit in that arena.

I'm finishing up a BS/BA in bio/chem, and have a BS in physical anthropology. Expecting to move on to some sort of taphonomic/bioarch post grad afterwards. So I have a pretty broad background that is particularly focused on subjects such as evolution, particularly human evolution and even more particularly focused on the evolution of the human skeleton, as well as archaeology.

Yeah I don't really like the classification of life/non-life honestly, its a very arbitrary distinction that implies some sort of divide between living and non living matter that kinda doesn't exist once you dig down far enough.
 

pharmakos

soʞɐɯɹɐɥd
<Bronze Donator>
16,305
-2,234
interesting. i had a random thought the other day that you might be able to expand upon -- is it possible that the Germanic myth about dwarves is actually a description of the last surviving neanderthals? could a few handfuls of neanderthal have survived up until about 2000-4000 years ago?
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Eh they interbred with modern Eurasians, so in a way they never actually died out at all, but the evidence for their extinction is pretty solid at around 40k thousand years ago.

Neanderthals Died Out 10,000 Years Earlier Than Thought, With Help From Modern Humans

Over the entire human genome, something like 20% of the DNA is descended from Neanderthal. Any individual only has about 1-2% neanderthal genes though.

The inspiration for dwarves in mythology probably comes from the practice of using bog peat to acquire enough iron to make iron tools back in the days of the iron age. The iron accumulates in the peat bogs as it runs off microscopically from the mountains, and if you burn enough of the dried peat you can accumulate enough to fashion axe heads and the like.

Hurstwic: Iron Production in the Viking Age
 

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,656
Irish have the fomor.

Really though I think those are just moralistic monster stories. I don't know that they have to be inspired by anything in particular, and most cultures that I'm aware of have a version. It's just bored old men making shit up for the most part is what I assume.

Like the animal human hybrids. I saw a dude two villages over... That fucker is as big as a bear! Now you have a story about bear people.
 

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor
25,946
113,036
So, about the entropy leads to life. I've read it before, but I'm probably missing a big piece of chemical understanding. I haven't had chemistry in more than a decade, and even then it was an intro course :p. From what I understand so far...You have a liquid medium (Water) that facilitates entropy (Dissolution of energy through chemical recombination?)...then you have an energy source which adds to the energy of the system (The puddle in this case) and forces the entropy...Then you have carbon, which is important because it's electron shell is unstable, and thus can bond with all the other atoms.

Now, here is what I don't understand. Energy (Sunlight) hits this puddle of muck; and since the muck puddle now has a higher state of energy, entropy favors chemicals which will bring the energy lower? I believe that is what he's saying, whatever consistently lowers or dissolves (Entropy) the energy within our puddle, gets favored in a type of molecular natural selection. So if a certain type of organic material absorbs energy better than others? It will have an easier time forming in this system, and thus will have an advantage. This leads to the basis of evolution. Now, I may have mangled that, let me know if I did, but a couple quesitons.

Now, from what I remember from Chemistry, which was a decade ago (And random readings); you need a small amount of energy to over come the magnetic repulsion of electrons..to force the atoms close enough so that another force (I forget what it's called, some kind of exclusionary force?) can take over. This other force is the driving force behind outer shell stability---now here is the thing. As far as I'm aware, when the elctrons are shared, the system reduces its total energy because this force is nullified or something, and thus most organic combinations areexoergicto the larger system--which is why we burn fuel.

Here's the thing, if these reactions release more energy than they take in...why are they favored through the forces of entropy? Now I'm guessing I'm not looking at the system correctly. And what I have to look at is entropy on this molecular scale, which is now complete because the molecule is stable. But in our puddle, why is this thing which will release energy back into the system favored (If the law of the system is to favor something that lowers it)? Is it because this energy will be in a form which can quickly bleed off and leave the system in a lower state? In that case though, does it get favored simply because it is the most efficient method of lowering energy in the system even if it raises it during the reaction? (Or maybe it differs moment to moment, like all that matters is that said energy will be used right then for an easy reaction)

And lastly...Even if these molecules were favored, how does them being favored over and over again lead to replication? Like how does one particle, lets say protein X, which in this puddle happens to be the best protein for entropy because the availability of components and the energy levels are super-suited to it. So this molecule gets formed a lot--how does that advantage in formation lead to one protein X particle directly affecting the formation of another (Which I think is one of the biggest keyholes in terms of life vs non-life?)...Like is there a release of some kind of smaller molecule which goes around an inspires a new reaction that builds another protein X, and thus releases that molecule again to continue? (Kind of like a proto-RNA)

In any case, some of this might be really obtuse. Sorry for using this as an Explain it like I'm five board.
 

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
I'm gonna try to answer your post to the best of my ability Lithose, some other people may want to chime in with some points they think they can make better as well.

So first:

You've gotten your definition of entropy wrong. Entropy is energy that has become unavailable for use as work energy, and entropic energy is more disorganized, not more organized. Organized energy is energy capable of doing work.

entropy - Google Search

en?tro?py
'entr?pe/Submit
noun
1.
PHYSICS
a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system.
2.
lack of order or predictability; gradual decline into disorder.
"a marketplace where entropy reigns supreme"
So when you say

.You have a liquid medium (Water) that facilitates entropy (Dissolution of energy through chemical recombination?)
you've got an error in comprehension there (which, having not had chemistry in a decade and then only an intro course, is perfectly reasonable).

So then when you reach this conclusion

Energy (Sunlight) hits this puddle of muck; and since the muck puddle now has a higher state of energy, entropy favors chemicals which will bring the energy lower?
You've kinda gotten it backwards. More energy in the medium -> More organized energy in the system -> More energy able to do work like drive reactions forwards. Living molecules are better at taking this organized energy and utilizing it more efficiently, so they are favored in high energy situations.

Here's the thing, if these reactions release more energy than they take in...why are they favored through the forces of entropy?
In any chemical reaction, only some of the total energy is lost as entropic energy (basically heat), and there are reactions which produce MORE energy than it takes to form their bonds initially. The words you're looking for here are exothermic and endothermic (releases energy and retains energy, respectivley) In fact, one molecule of particular note that does this is Adenosine Triphosphate, or ATP, the key molecule that powers pretty much all living organisms on this planet. ATP is produced through glycolysis, the breaking down of glucose in reciprocation with respiration, to form these molecules which, when the bonds are broken in them, produce massive amounts of energy that your cells then use to power your life.

The entire focus of like the first four major biology classes you take in a biology program are focused at least 50% of the time, on burning this process into your brain. Its super intricate and detailed, involving several cycles like the Krebs cycle and so forth, and honestly, once you've learned it you instantly forget half of it lol. But that's what's going on to power every cell in your body.



Even if these molecules were favored, how does them being forced over and over again lead to replication?
The proliferation of the self replicating molecule is an effect of that molecule coming into existence in the first place. It would have no competition, so once it replicates once, and then again, and then again, it becomes the dominant molecule (with modification) until these molecules start consuming one another, at which point competition comes into play.

So this molecule gets formed a lot--how does that advantage in formation lead to one protein X particle directly affecting the formation of another (Which I think is one of the biggest keyholes in terms of life vs non-life?)...Like is there a release of some kind of smaller molecule which goes around an inspires a new reaction that builds another protein X, and thus releases that molecule again to continue? (Kind of like a proto-RNA)
That's probably one of the biggest unanswered questions that biochemists are still working on. What was the primordial initial self replicating polymer? A lot of people think it probably was some sort of rudimentary TRNA or some sort of reverse transcriptase type molecule, that actually began the process, but we don't really know yet, basically.

Hope that helps. I think I got most of that post covered here. Let me know if you think I missed something important.
 

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
47,389
80,851
Hodj, Iannis and Dumar are all equally wrong because the subset of RNA that forms lysterine through bianually linked TRT strands can form causalities through triple stranded nuclear pairs.
 

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor
25,946
113,036
Thanks guys, I think that covers most of it. I think my big issue is not quite grasping entropy. Here is where I'm hung up.

hodj_sl said:
You've kinda gotten it backwards. More energy in the medium -> More organized energy in the system -> More energy able to do work like drive reactions forwards. Living molecules are better at taking this organized energy and utilizing it more efficiently, so they are favored in high energy situations.

Here's the thing, if these reactions release more energy than they take in...why are they favored through the forces of entropy?

In any chemical reaction, only some of the total energy is lost as entropic energy (basically heat), and there are reactions which produce MORE energy than it takes to form their bonds initially. The words you're looking for here are exothermic and endothermic (releases energy and retains energy, respectivley)
I think the thing I'm missing most is exactly why entropy favors exothermic reactions within systems-- for example, when the bonds form, they producemoreenergy than they take in, right (Just like burning some carbon to bind it with oxygen, it's exothermic)? So, our puddle--which, due the laws of thermodynamics favors reducing the "usable" energy in its system into a non-usable form--why would it favor a molecule which, as it reacts,increasesthe power in the system by creating energy during its reaction? (Like as Carbon bonds, more energy spills into the system; right? Or am I missing the loss of energy from the lowering of the shell instability in the carbon atom?)

I'm not getting something obvious here--I pretty much understand that. I'm just looking for what it is. (I'm going to guess looking at the puddle as a system is myopic because it's not actually closed ect. But the core of it is, if you've got sunlight increasing energy, and this theory states the drive for "life" is to better use that energy up; why would it favor molecules which increase the energy available for work? Or am I looking wrong and while the process does create energy, the important fact is it is not in a usable form (Or not directly usable) like the ATP particle?)


In any case, thanks for both explanations. Recently I've been tempted to go back to school for a more STEM oriented degree (Complete the higher end math courses I took, and try for Chem or Phys), mainly just because I've been reading a lot of "layman's science" books lately and am frustrated by my layman's understanding :p...So really interested in this.