The micro pores of deep sea vents have been compared to “micro pumps” or even to power sources (see refs, Mitchel 1959, Lane et al 2010, Russell et al 2014, ). “This would be a routine source of power for life, not random like a lightening strike” …“It works something like a battery..” (see Live Science, Nick Lane Jan 10, 2013)
Alright, so if we can imagine that there are these
nano-sized batteries all along the surface of these deep hydrothermal vents
e.g. the ones in “lost city” then we can also imagine that to have something
theoretically analogous to a battery the battery must be driving some process?**
It must power something, as all batteries, even ones that are passively
discharging, drive at the very least, the generation of heat, and by
“generation of heat” we mean that we can detect some elevation in temperature
relative to the environment surrounding the “battery.” Likewise, if these are
tiny “pumps” then they, the nano-sized pumps are creating a gradient by their
“action” against their surroundings. It’s a good workable analogy because it
very precisely illustrates the difference between what my theory is and what is
currently believed. We’ve talked about the ‘continuity principal’ and what it
predicts is that these “batteries” or “pumps” that are apparently lining the
vent surfaces, are not actively doing anything against their surrounding
medium. Are we really to believe that nature is spontaneously driving these
tiny nano-sized batteries or pumps on the vent surface? And if so, why? How
does a natural thermal heat vent, brimming with hot, hydronium ions generate
tiny batteries or pumps that then allegedly operate to OPPOSE the very force,
then nano-environment of ions, that is surrounding them? Would we expect that a
vortices in a stream might somehow build up or develop a force which opposes
the forces which create the vortex? For a force to exist, such as FN
it would necessarily have to be a Force that is applied against the system. Clearly they wish to have perpetual
energy device spontaneously self-generating to oppose these forces, such that
they can claim that this would exemplify a natural engine that “life,” some form
that has never been seen, will “learn” to adapt. Experimentally, we can test
the notion of these nano-batteries or pumps using the VCS theory. The virtual
closed system can be viewed as the microstate surrounding each proposed
“battery” or pump lodged within the pore structure of the hydrothermal vent
column. What we can see is that this proposed theory of “water world” has
difficulty in demonstrating how the energy Eo
that is flowing through such a VCS will change its vector and generate a force
opposing itself. Eo,
which can be represented as the heat from the vent, OR the differential ion
concentration driving a proton gradient, i.e. a pH gradient, is obviously in
great supply, that is Eo. But in this Eo fluxing
through our VCS, we can see that it lacks a particular form of energy “relative
entropy” which is available energy to do work on its surroundings. This is an
active form of energy, in motion, which we would observe as actual reversal of
flow or ion gradient at the interface of the VCS the “entropic barrier” and we
would measurably detect such nano-forces.
We have also theorized that the reason such a nano-force is not observed
is because of a lack of an impetus or opposing normal force which I’ve described
as FN but also FL . FN would be the
force “experienced” by an application of FL
but in principal either FN ,
FL designates the other’s
presence in the solution. Without such a force, there can be no work done as
the flow of Eo (the
super heated basified water) proceeds unopposed from its source to its
destination, i.e. through the VCS micro state and into the surrounding
seawater. My theory predicts that we should not observe an FL, nor should we observe a nano-battery as they
describe, which causes some effect on its surroundings. Such nano-pumps or
batteries would need to do some unit of work on their surroundings. But as we
predict, the entropic potential is equivalent on both sides of the entropic
barrier, inside and outside the VCS, thus we find no greater potential to do
work towards the VCS or away from it. In other words delta S is the same across
any given VCS we measure at the surface of the vent, and we expect to find no
VCS’s that are spontaneously generating entropic potentials greater or lesser
than average. We futher would find that Fsub(thermal vent) exerts a force equal
and opposite to its surroundings , which we can describe as – FTHERM. The consequence of
this principal is that we do not find vector such that this vector would be FN +FTHERM> FTHERM
over time. This would not be the case for an Archea found near the vent. We
would find that it, or any other living organism, generates a force FN on its environment.
The test of this new theory is of course to detect and
measure some effect of these proposed nano-batteries or pumps on their
environment. This type of measurement is technically feasible, at least in
bench type models (which could in fact, take porous sections and measure ex
vivo, if such pH or heat differenitals promote nano-engines that “pump” or do
work to cause change. Concentration gradient could be observed by microscopy or
by fluorescence, or by a variety of other means available. A positive would
confirm the “water world” hypothesis. A negative would I believe give evidence
for VCS theory. The control is a living cell. We can measure such concentration
gradients in for example, drug studies which I can perform in living cells and
quantitatively measure. It is proposed by such researchers, that micro or nano
compartment or cells are present in the thermal vent tubes. Such compartments
could be simulated by a porous material infused with basic water. So we might
infuse such an artificial vent with a small detectable molecule, like MTN, and
examine microspopically if this tracer does in fact concentrate in regions or
not.
[**I want to emphasize that the notion of the battery itself
can introduce some degree of confusion. The battery in the strict sense of my
theory I’ve proposed, actually is an inanimate system which does not exert a FL or FN. In fact, a true battery, though “charged” will
behave if we consider it in terms of entropy, exactly like the systems around
it. The illusion that it is “doing” something other than in fact, decaying or
reaching a lower energy level, is one that is projected on the device by the
intelligent being that manufactured it. A battery is no more capable of doing
work than a hammer or a rock [which might be elevated at some potential, i.e. perched on a shelf or located on a mountain, but the same notion applies to molecules or atoms.] This is an important physical distinction that
further delineates what VCS theory is, from the current perspective, i.e. that
there are “tiny batteries” in vent tubes which may power nano-chemistries.
8.8.15]
It has been proposed by researchers supporting the Hydrothermal
–Origin of life- vent theory that cellular membrane pumps are found in deep sea
vent systems:
“Autotrophic cells, including phototrophs and
chemolithotrophs, also use proton gradients to power carbon fixation directly.
The universality of chemiosmotic coupling suggests that it arose very early in
evolution, but its origins are obscure. Alkaline hydrothermal systems sustain
natural proton gradients across the thin inorganic barriers of interconnected
micropores within deep-sea vents” see Herschy, …Lane..et al (2014) “An Origin
of Life Reactor To Simulate Alkaline Hydrothermal Vents” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4247476/
From the same reference:
“…We discuss the construction and testing of the reactor,
describing the precipitation of thin-walled, inorganic structures containing
nickel-doped mackinawite, a catalytic Fe(Ni)S mineral, under prebiotic ocean
conditions. These simulated vent structures appear to generate low yields of
simple organics. Synthetic microporous matrices can concentrate organics by
thermophoresis over several orders of magnitude under continuous open-flow vent
conditions.”
It is not necessary, chemically to reproduce this experiment
in exact detail as there is no basis to assume that such an experiment is in
fact positive. Any more than we should expect that a new chemical configuration
will demonstrate a reaction that generates more free energy than it consumes,
any chemical experiment will suffice to negate that premise and re-affirm the
first law of thermodynamics. It is claimed here, (Herschy 2014) that some chemicals
are concentrated within the pores at “orders of magnitude” levels [higher than what] they
otherwise might be. Are we to understand that this is not the simple effect of
deposition, due to, for example, the same effect of virtually any heated
surface in contact with brine, the heated surface causing drop out and
precipitation due to a real surface gradient and superheating and
concentrating? (“scaling” is one example.) When super heated salt water turns
to steam the solubility coefficient of the salts previously dissolved in that
water decreases (it’s a supercritical fluid), and the salts deposit on the
heated surface. The surface in this case is the ocean floor where the mineral
column builds. However, such heated surfaces are not in fact “causing” micro
environs to operate autonomously, such as what I propose a VCS would do. The
pores are not causing concentration of organics themselves, but are the product
again, of a net surface behavior, driven by an energy source. The problem is to
show that the individual pores are themselves, acting, just as we know cells to
act, individually on their environs (exerting the control) to concentrate
molecules, but at a more basic physical level than obviously cells do. The fact
that the tight research community advocating these theories cannot provide any
physical scenario i.e. analogous example or model, to bridge chemistry with animate
processes they presume to explain, except by invoking the terms “selection” or
“learning” lends more support to my thesis that a real alternative theory is
needed in this problem space and debate.
de Duve comes very close to actually stating what he means
by chemical “selection” but never quite reaches it. He indicates that in the
current theory of origins of life, chemical processes must exhibit “selection”
after there is chemistry.
“Selection is
different. Originally formulated by Darwin as the mechanism of evolution of
reproducing living organisms, natural selection also affects replicating molecules
such as RNA, as first shown by Spiegelman [7] and since repeated in a variety
of ways by many investigators. In both cases, the essence of the process lies
in the imperfections of reproduction. For all sorts of reasons, whenever entities
are replicated, variants of the original model are inevitably produced. Selection
acts on those variants to automatically bring out those that are most stable
and, especially, most capable of producing progeny, under the prevailing conditions.
AND…” Natural selection acts blindly on the products of chance. It has no
foresight.”
What this explanation lacks specifically is, as I’ve
discussed here, a model for the thermodynamics. The “natural selection” de Duve
invokes has no means of overcoming the natural tendencies, the opposing forces,
which are driving the dissipation of reactants toward lower concentrations not
higher. The apparent proton-pumping “force” that Duve and others invoke as that
which driving chemistry in useful ways, (presumably useful to pre-biotic forms
in terms of supplying higher energy chemical feed stocks), is imaginary, as
there is nothing actively selecting molecules to move against entropy; for
example, Fick’s law of diffusion and Fourier’s heat dissipation law. The same
occurs in the heated vents under the sea, but they have failed to realize that
the concentration effects due to thermophoresis, are only a minor aspect and
are in fact, operating in normal directions in favor of dissipation. This can
be envisioned by considering an example of a cascading waterfall. [I’m thinking
of systems of natural pools I’ve encountered while hiking in local mountains.] We
can see in the water fall the collection of smaller smooth stones in the
bottoms of the deeper pools, and fewer stones aggregating towards the edges.
The system is energetically analogous (despite being much larger in scale) to
what is occurring in so called concentrating “vesicles”, (in which molecular
particles are aggregated by flow within nano-compartments) but here, we simply
replace the molecules with the pebbles. The molecules, like the pebbles are
deposited for a moment, but then are pushed through, randomly. We do not find
movement of the smooth pebbles of the stream which on average oppose the motion
of the stream. The movement of these pebbles, the vast majority are in line
with the forces of the moving water. That is because of the vectorial direction
of force taking the shortest pathway, the lowest height, (and least resistance
to gravity) towards the waterfall’s lip. What is interesting from the
standpoint of chemical “natural selection” however is the realization of its
invisibility (meaning its physical absence) in terms of describing actual
chemical behavior. What is chemical “natural selection” aside from some
imaginary term invoked to fill the gaping hole, the chasm that must be
traversed between inanimate chemistry, i.e. the failures of Haldane and many
others, and the replication chemistry of nucleic acids, which ONLY occurs
inside a cell or with the aid of a living thing (such as a virus). We don’t
know of any replication occurring outside cells, even in the case of ocean
virus, I believe they must utilize bacteria or some living cellular host.
Moreover, so called chemical “natural selection” invoked by de Duve and others,
has no structure, or formula, or even a model, for traversing the thermodynamic
issues that face molecules as they purportedly “trudge” across that divide.
A radical new approach is needed to this intractable
problem.
So we’re speaking here not specifically to any type of
chemistry itself, but to a difference in fundamental approach to the problem.
The authors have continued largely from work that was started back in the
1950’s with Mitchel, where Mitchel “equates” the interface between living cells
and the environment surrounding them. The authors have made the case that
various disequilibrium processes, are actively operating as engines to drive
self-assembly and phosphorylation chemistries, among others, in a kind of
natural factory or even a bio-nursery, in which primordial living forms were
assembled. They are misled in the belief, however, that there is a single
vector of force that can be found that points in the right direction supporting
that premise. And what they have neglected is that for every motion of a
virtual or actual “motor” or engine that they envision, there are more vectors
in that very same turbulence or pH gradient, or temperature gradient that are
directly opposing these motions. Hence my comment that not a single vector of
force is operating in their favor of such a theory as “pumps” or of what amount
to be entropic systems which are running in reverse, that is, they have excess
energy to do useful work, that is the essence of negative entropy which I’ve
discussed elsewhere (also see Schrodinger’s “What is Life?”). That thermodynamic
indictment of “constructive” theories, and the like, is the unexpected result
of my analysis with VCS. For example they claim that the earth’s mantle system
has been operating for “200-300 million years” as “effectively an engine” to
move lower mantle to the surface and drive geochemical processes in the earth,
which are purported as sources of primordial drivers. They are surprisingly
oblivious of the vectors of force in these cases, and my earlier comment that
they apparently wish to invoke a kind of “perpetual energy” mechanics is of
concern. Where exactly does that excess
energy come from to drive a potentially biologically useful reaction, to pump electrons
in the way chemistry has been understood for over 100 years, (nothing new
there) again in a natural, dissipative system? Their theory of natural pumps
which evolve from natural dissipative processes, reduces to an entropy
generator which is running in reverse. Which I would define as simply the claim
that a system will oppose itself, which is not possible, but is only feasible
in principal if energy is supplied from the outside. For example, if someone
were to claim that they have a “motor” which requires no structural input or
design, and can do some amount of work on its natural surroundings, that would
be a rather surprising if not dubious claim. But the other implication of
“perpetual energy” mechanics is that they are obviously coming up with useful
work energy that isn’t present in the system.
Again, (regarding their “perpetual
energy like claims…” this is the same fault that is found in perpetual devices,
(see the patent office for a history of such pseudo science) they do not
account for the actual loss of energy of their device (or experimental
apparatus), just as these authors do not account for the total loss of available
energy (in their experiments) or concomitantly, the source of such useful
energy. Though they present no equations, chemical or otherwise, they infer
them, by their claim that phosphorylation and other chemistries that would be
critical to theoretical early life, are “driven” by these entropic systems.
That is patently false. None of the chemistries that these authors have
described, absolutely none, will be driven oppositively, by the
inanimate chemical pumping “systems” they purport to occur readily or
preferentially, in the opposite way of their actual natural tendencies, i.e.
toward less energetic lower energy products, products which deter and oppose
life. This is well known since living things must add energy to such systems by
the extraction from Eo [total initial or incident energy entering the system] from
the sun’s energy or from other readily available chemical energy.
In contrast, the predictions of the VCS theory are independent of what form of
energy one begins with, it is irrelevant if it is chemical or mechanical. So if
we are to actually imagine that a thermal sea vent can in fact drive concentration
gradients AWAY from their natural tendencies, we should be very surprised at
that claim. The very forces that are identified in these papers I’ve cited
here, are forces which actively oppose living structures in every respect.
Concentrated brine, thermal disequilibrium, diffusion and natural “pumps” or
“engines” are falsely described as working towards life, when in fact these are
environmental forces which the living creatures which live around these vents
must constantly oppose. Prigogine’s far from equilibrium systems are disruptive
not constructive, they are merely dissipative of energy, and cooling diffusion
and disequilibrium are all synonymous and congruent with higher entropy, not
lower.
No comments:
Post a Comment