Are there electroweak forces in living organisms?

[jaboo]

Is there actually an electroweak or electromagnetic life force or bioenergy in living organisms?

According to a Wikipedia article, there is supposed to be some esoteric energy that powers living organisms.

So my question is: how does the electromagnetic force, quantum mechanics and the electroweak force really manifest in living organisms?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Biology is chemistry and chemistry is atomic level physics and atomic level physics is quantum electrodynamics.

 

[jaboo]

Biology is chemistry and chemistry is atomic level physics and atomic level physics is quantum electrodynamics.

What about quantum chromodynamics and electroweak theory?

 

[Aqueous Id]

Is there actually an electroweak or electromagnetic life force or bioenergy in living organisms?

According to a Wikipedia article, there is supposed to be some esoteric energy that powers living organisms.

So my question is: how does the electromagnetic force, quantum mechanics and the electroweak force really manifest in living organisms?

Are you asking if living matter is defined differently than inert matter, according to some difference that occurs at the quantum level within the molecules that comprise it?

If so, consider this. A typical cell will build all the infrastructure it needs from raw materials which are inert. All of this of course is programmed in the DNA. At some point, the cell reaches a readiness for mitosis. A lot of interesting things happen next during cell division, and then are two daughter cells. They absorb nutrients and build their infrastructures as before until ready to divide. And so on.

Since this process is accomplished by absorbing inert materials and using their constituent inert molecules to build proteins, enzymes and lipids, etc., and to apply these to the construction of the constituent structures within the cell (outer and nuclear membranes; organelles--mitochondria, ribosomes, vacuoles, etc,.; plus structures supporting locomotion), then the cell is, chemically, merely a matrix of inert compounds.

So the idea that something different may be going on at the quantum level, just because the compounds are organized into particular structures, seems unconnected to any idea within the realm of cellular biology or physics.

Also note, the union of frozen sperm and ova, as in in vitro fertilization, would seem to show life springing from non-life, although to some degree this might be debatable. The other demonstration that comes to mind is the recent announcement that a cell colony was produced from a computer-created DNA sequence, which also works against the idea.

Are you wondering if there is an as-yet undiscovered animating cause to living cells? I would suggest that anyone who ever mixed an acid and a base has some idea that chemicals in the right combinations demonstrate a kind of animation that is intrinsic to inert materials.

 

[pluto2]

If so, consider this. A typical cell will build all the infrastructure it needs from raw materials which are inert. All of this of course is programmed in the DNA. At some point, the cell reaches a readiness for mitosis. A lot of interesting things happen next during cell division, and then are two daughter cells. They absorb nutrients and build their infrastructures as before until ready to divide. And so on.

But we are not just cells and DNA. Saying that we are just cells, chemistry and DNA is not good science at all.

I believe that there is a life force or bioenergy that powers or animates all living animals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_(esotericism)

 

[HectorDecimal]

Put this in a search engine

Floating Frogs

It will answer your question as to whether we have electric fields in our bodies. Another way is simply put your finger near a plasma globe. There will be a collective reaction.

 

[HectorDecimal]

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n23_v152/ai_20112887/

http://www.bing.com/search?q=Floating+Frog+Magnetic+Field&FORM=QSRE7

There. It takes Floating Frogs Magnetic Field to get results.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

What about quantum chromodynamics and electroweak theory?

Electroweak corrections to quantum electrodynamics only occur at very high energy. Similarly, QCD is dominant in nuclear processes, they will not play a part in biological processes which are all chemical in nature.

 

[Nicholas Marks]

If we look at things scientifically we find that every star and every atom has an electric natured truth in its fabric. Looking for a line of logic which brings this electric force alive must be the key to why all things have a scientific logic. The living cell is no exception and its electric nature must be far more important than we realise.

 

[wlminex]

The Casimir Effect operates on the scale of neurons . . . est. ~ 5-10 um . . . Google Quantum Consciousness

 

[jaboo]

Similarly, QCD is dominant in nuclear processes, they will not play a part in biological processes which are all chemical in nature.

Yes but we are not just biochemical processes, we are much more than that of course.
Humans are spiritual, cultural AND biophysical phenomoena and many intelligent people also say that we have a spirit or a soul.

 

[Cavalier]

Yes but we are not just biochemical processes, we are much more than that of course.
Humans are spiritual, cultural AND biophysical phenomoena and many intelligent people also say that we have a spirit or a soul.

Disregard quantum consciousness (at least as "science" as philosophy you are free to consider it all you like) as it's all unproven speculation with a veneer of scientific sounding jargon.

As for "we are not just biochemical processes, we are much more than that of course," that is a controversial statement, especially the addition of the "of course" as if your statement were obvious. Plenty of "intelligent people" deny the existence of a spirit or a soul, and are strict physicalists.

If what you want is a scientific basis for a belief in the spirit or soul, then you are not going to find one, as none presently exists.

 

[jaboo]

If what you want is a scientific basis for a belief in the spirit or soul, then you are not going to find one, as none presently exists.

That's very controversial in my opinion.

Christians, Muslims, Jews, Gnostics and Hindus will probably tell you that we do have a soul and that we were all in fact created by God.

 

[Cavalier]

That's very controversial in my opinion.

Christians, Muslims, Jews, Gnostics and Hindus will probably tell you that we do have a soul and that we were all in fact created by God.

Yes they all do, but that does not mean that there is any scientific evidence that they are correct. There may well be a soul, but there is no scientific basis for believing there is one.

One can believe that Odin rules as King of the Gods in the magical realm of Asgard, and it is true that many of my ancestors all over north and western Europe believed in that. But one's faith in that would be just that—faith. There is no actual evidence that Odin or the other Norse gods exist or ever existed. That there is no evidence is not "proof" that the Norse gods don't exist, but it does mean that we cannot presently look to science to explain people's belief in them.

The same is true of the "soul."

 

[jaboo]

Yes they all do, but that does not mean that there is any scientific evidence that they are correct. There may well be a soul, but there is no scientific basis for believing there is one.

I believe in Gnosticism more than I believe in souls anyway and there is no evidence that Gnosticism is actually false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demiurge

 

[Cavalier]

and there is no evidence that Gnosticism is actually false.

That's true...but if I were to say that I believe the center of the Moon is populated by a family of magical unicorns, there would be no evidence that that belief is false.

Having no evidence of a belief's being false is not the same thing as having affirmative evidence for that belief.

The central point is that, if there is a God, He, She, It or They have not left any conclusive evidence suggesting theism is correct or that any particular extant religion is more correct than the others. That does not rule out the possibility that theism or a given religion in general is correct, but at this point one is not likely to find any such evidence through scientific principles.

 

[pluto2]

That does not rule out the possibility that theism or a given religion in general is correct, but at this point one is not likely to find any such evidence through scientific principles.

The way I see it, science is also a religion and that's because all debate over scientific issues can easily be ended by appeals to authority. And who says that what those in power say is true necessarily must be true?

The problem is that atheism provides too many Gods, far more that the Roman, Greek, and Eastern religions provided.

 

[darryl]

There may well be a soul, but there is no scientific basis for believing there is one.

Ok fair play theres no repeatable scientific evidence yet you are right, but we have some fringey science stuff (better than nothing).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippolyte_Baraduc

 

[Junglebearz]

The electroweak interaction only occurs at extremely high temperatures where the weak interaction and electromagnetism blend together, therefore in the human body, or for any organic body that we know of, it does not play a factor.The electromagnetic force is present in all known life, for we all use atoms as fundamental building blocks.
Entropy is simply the spreading of thermal energy. Atoms and molecules are constantly moving, and when they bump into each other, they transmit some of that energy. Just like a cue ball hitting the 8 ball and transferring movement to it. All interactions above the atomic scale cause entropy

 

[Cavalier]

The way I see it, science is also a religion and that's because all debate over scientific issues can easily be ended by appeals to authority. And who says that what those in power say is true necessarily must be true?

In the end, though science is an appeal to reality as we observe it. You don't have to rely on experts if you do not want, you just have to learn enough to conduct the experiments yourself, you at least take people's words on what they observed when they conducted the experiment, and then using that data draw your own conclusions. The reliance on experts is only needed when you do not want to invest the time needed to learn how to analyze the data yourself.

Religion, on the other hand, is unlikely to be confirmed by any data we are ever likely to see. God (or whatever religious principle drives one's religion) is clear operating in subtle ways that make it hard to objectively determine His/Its influence directly.

It's possible the Norse Gods could descend from on high tomorrow, thus proving their reality, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

The problem is that atheism provides too many Gods, far more that the Roman, Greek, and Eastern religions provided.

How does atheism, which denies all gods, provide "too many"? Or is this related to your "science is a religion" claim (which I categorically reject and which I think we have to reject on a science forum, as simply being a rhetorical point that is in fact quite incorrect).