New physics needed to probe the origins of life(nature.com)
nature.com
New physics needed to probe the origins of life
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-01318-z
18 comments
Note: the title is not the conclusion or the content of the article. The article attempts to be less dismissive to some of the direct claims of the author of a book a comment on which the article is, and the title maybe corresponds to the content of the book which is "provocative" (but it can be the intervention of an editor too). And according to the article the book's logic is something like "because we don't have starting conditions we can't have formulas which would allow an exact derivation of how life evolves, therefore it's beyond physics."
But that doesn't mean that the evolution didn't happen exactly following the physical laws, only that you can't have "nice" formulas. But, realistically, nobody should expect "nice formulas." Not everything that happens can be reduced to a nice formula. The motion of two bodies due to the gravitation they have can be reduced to a nice formula since Newton. But the motion of three bodies?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem
"Unlike two-body problems, no closed-form solution exists for all sets of initial conditions, and numerical methods are generally required."
Is it "beyond physics"? No. It's just "there's no nice formula." And if it's so hard only with three bodies, and considering the immense scale at which molecular events happen (atoms and molecules having their own laws of interaction which are simpler for two but again immensely more complex for more), of course not too much simplicity to predict everything together should be expected.
The article author also disagrees with the "beyond physics" formulation.
"New" physics in the language of the physicists means specifically "the new particles which don't fit to our existing theory." And "the scale of the known interactions is too big for nice formulas" doesn't lead to that. So the claims of "new physics" in the article are simply "non sequitur." No new particles are needed.
But that doesn't mean that the evolution didn't happen exactly following the physical laws, only that you can't have "nice" formulas. But, realistically, nobody should expect "nice formulas." Not everything that happens can be reduced to a nice formula. The motion of two bodies due to the gravitation they have can be reduced to a nice formula since Newton. But the motion of three bodies?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem
"Unlike two-body problems, no closed-form solution exists for all sets of initial conditions, and numerical methods are generally required."
Is it "beyond physics"? No. It's just "there's no nice formula." And if it's so hard only with three bodies, and considering the immense scale at which molecular events happen (atoms and molecules having their own laws of interaction which are simpler for two but again immensely more complex for more), of course not too much simplicity to predict everything together should be expected.
The article author also disagrees with the "beyond physics" formulation.
"New" physics in the language of the physicists means specifically "the new particles which don't fit to our existing theory." And "the scale of the known interactions is too big for nice formulas" doesn't lead to that. So the claims of "new physics" in the article are simply "non sequitur." No new particles are needed.
Physics is at the end of a day a human construct which quite obviously reflects reality, but is not equivalent to that reality, and is useful to the extent it helps us understand and predict natural phenomena.
Their choice of terminology could be better, but strictly is compatible with the definition of physics.
Their choice of terminology could be better, but strictly is compatible with the definition of physics.
> Their choice of terminology could be better, but strictly is compatible with the definition of physics.
Even if you'd argue that "everything can be called physics", which is not how the natural sciences are organized, using some specific terminology that has a very exact meaning in the physics as it is seen today, but giving it the opposite and misleading meaning is plainly wrong, unless one wants to support the misleading of the casual readers.
The article title and terminology are misleading, messaging the public completely the opposite of what the natural sciences agree of.
Even if you'd argue that "everything can be called physics", which is not how the natural sciences are organized, using some specific terminology that has a very exact meaning in the physics as it is seen today, but giving it the opposite and misleading meaning is plainly wrong, unless one wants to support the misleading of the casual readers.
The article title and terminology are misleading, messaging the public completely the opposite of what the natural sciences agree of.
Yes and no. Physics is done by humans, but at the end of the day this Higgs from the convoluted construct is actually there, go figure.
Maybe physics is onto something, maybe aliens can't get here because conservation of momentum is a universal law indeed, they're bounded by it like every other speck of dust, and their alien construct about it has to look pretty much like ours, the only difference being notations.
It's not so clear cut to me anymore we're making models that by definition can never hit the jackpot. I guess we can't even be sure about that.
Maybe physics is onto something, maybe aliens can't get here because conservation of momentum is a universal law indeed, they're bounded by it like every other speck of dust, and their alien construct about it has to look pretty much like ours, the only difference being notations.
It's not so clear cut to me anymore we're making models that by definition can never hit the jackpot. I guess we can't even be sure about that.
> Maybe physics is onto something
It is indisputable that the natural sciences objectively improve our overall understanding of the world. Those who don't accept that much are simply giving up rationality and claiming "miracles" where there are rational explanations. Typically, there's some very specific agenda that such entities have.
It is indisputable that the natural sciences objectively improve our overall understanding of the world. Those who don't accept that much are simply giving up rationality and claiming "miracles" where there are rational explanations. Typically, there's some very specific agenda that such entities have.
"Stuart Kauffman’s provocative take" sounds a lot like vitalism. Which is where many go when they can't find simplistic explanations. Such as, for example, Hans Driesch, when embryos didn't respond as expected to experimental manipulation. But then Alan Turing came along.[0]
So anyway, "new physics" is arguably a cop out.
0) https://www.nature.com/articles/482464a.pdf?origin=ppub
So anyway, "new physics" is arguably a cop out.
0) https://www.nature.com/articles/482464a.pdf?origin=ppub
Kauffman is the originator of Boolean networks[1], a particularly interesting computational view of biology.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_network
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_network
And he is also no physicist:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Kauffman
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Kauffman
Is an interesting counterpoint to idea being worked on by Jeremy England that there is an underlying organising mechanism leading to life that is inherent within thermodynamics - Statistical Physics of Adaptation by Nikolai Perunov, Robert Marsland and Jeremy England - https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.1875
Jack Szostak does a pretty good job of outlining how life might have arisen. It’s less mysterious than it intuitively might seem:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PqPGOhXoprU
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ5jh33OiOA
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PqPGOhXoprU
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ5jh33OiOA
Are there transcripts anywhere outside youtube?
http://exploringorigins.org/
"This website is part of a multimedia exhibit at the Museum of Science that includes live presentations on the Current Science & Technology stage and a touch-screen kiosk."
(Museum of Science, Boston, 1 Science Park, Boston, MA 02114)
"Funding for this project was provided by the National Science Foundation."
"This website is part of a multimedia exhibit at the Museum of Science that includes live presentations on the Current Science & Technology stage and a touch-screen kiosk."
(Museum of Science, Boston, 1 Science Park, Boston, MA 02114)
"Funding for this project was provided by the National Science Foundation."
Why do we need physics in the first place, to explain life? Shouldn't chemistry be enough?
I guess if you can get the necessary chemical effects from quantum stuff, which I think crops up sometimes in biological processes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_biology
Technically chemistry could encompass quantum-derived chemical effects, but I believe the base insinuation of your post is that classical chemistry can describe everything we see in biology, eventually.
As to the post, who knows? "New physics" is unlikely, I would agree.
But I'm way out of my league here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_biology
Technically chemistry could encompass quantum-derived chemical effects, but I believe the base insinuation of your post is that classical chemistry can describe everything we see in biology, eventually.
As to the post, who knows? "New physics" is unlikely, I would agree.
But I'm way out of my league here.
"The question of whether there is a physics of life demands that we consider that all examples of life might at their core be part of the same fundamental phenomenon; otherwise, ‘life’ is not an objective property, but a collection of special cases... but conventional approaches to life’s origins — such as the ‘RNA world’ and other genetics-first models — cannot yet be formulated [as something like a physical law]. That is because they make many assumptions on the basis of properties that might be unique to the chemistry of life on Earth, such as that RNA is necessary to life’s origins."
Kauffman starts from the position that he wants life to be a unified ontological category, rather than a collection of special cases, but, for the sake of argument, what if it isn't the former? That would not rule out science[1] describing, analyzing and explaining it as the latter - it would just mean that Kauffman's intuitions would be mistaken.
Stephen Jay Gould, wearing his historian-of-science hat, wrote several articles about various examples of pre-, proto- and pseudo-scientific world models, each of which tried to fit the diversity of life into a preconceived grand scheme. Linnaeus et. al. took a radically different approach, in which they abandoned (or, at least, de-emphasized) preconceived schemes, and, working from the bottom up, based their taxonomy on a detailed examination of the physiological similarities and differences between organisms. The unifying theory for this taxonomy was found later, in the form of a theory of evolution, and the taxonomy undoubtedly helped develop the theory.
So let's put aside dreams of a unified theory, and see if we can understand just the origin of life on earth. If there is a grand theory, this would help find it.
[1] I wrote 'science', not 'physics', because I don't think the reduction of biology to physics is often useful. Take theories of evolution, for example: they are not reductionist, and a reduction of the history of life on earth to the underlying physics would not provide a better explanation.