QuoteFrom 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.QuoteEngland’s theory is meant to underlie, rather than replace, Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, which provides a powerful description of life at the level of genes and populations. “I am certainly not saying that Darwinian ideas are wrong,” he explained. “On the contrary, I am just saying that from the perspective of the physics, you might call Darwinian evolution a special case of a more general phenomenon.”
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.
England’s theory is meant to underlie, rather than replace, Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, which provides a powerful description of life at the level of genes and populations. “I am certainly not saying that Darwinian ideas are wrong,” he explained. “On the contrary, I am just saying that from the perspective of the physics, you might call Darwinian evolution a special case of a more general phenomenon.”
I thought this might have sparked more discussion than it has. . .
I'm just guessing here, but I don't see how there's any pull, other than the "force" of evolution, that draws matter to assemble and disperse energy, so I really don't see the point of this physical perspective of life. Unless the implication is that all energy needs to eventually convert to heat energy because of the laws of thermodynamics, which I guess exist so that the universe can eventually collapse back into a singularity in a 'it only exists because its opposite exists' law of the universe. Did that make any sense or did I just give you all heart attacks in which case...Physics students: 0Le Dustin: 10
I'm just guessing here, but I don't see how there's any pull, other than the "force" of evolution, that draws matter to assemble and disperse energy,
Quote from: Dustin My Urethra on December 09, 2014, 05:51:40 AMI'm just guessing here, but I don't see how there's any pull, other than the "force" of evolution, that draws matter to assemble and disperse energy,Evolution is not a force, it's only the end result of selection. As for your "pull," it's a well known fact that reactions that release energy are highly favored, meaning they happen spontaneously when certain requirements are met, and that systems as a whole tend to increase in entropy. Physicists don't know the exact reason for this, but it's and observed fact and the universe might not even exist as it is if it weren't true.
A Physical Theory of Life
