is life about the survival of the fittest chemistry?

[Michael 345]

If a photon has zero rest-mass, but acquires mass from its momentum alone, does it suggest that mass is a form of translated resistance? The greater the resistance the greater the mass, which in turn would suggest that the phenomenon of mass is related to size as well?

As I understand it a massless photon does not gain mass at spped which is the reason it can travel at light speed

 

[Write4U]

As I understand it a massless photon does not gain mass at spped which is the reason it can travel at light speed

This may illustrate what I was trying to say.

Does light have mass?

The short answer is "no", but it is a qualified "no" because there are odd ways of interpreting the question which could justify the answer "yes".

http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html

Of course, a photon (electron) is an element of chemistry, but is it a chemical?

 

[DaveC426913]

... a photon (electron) ...

This nomenclature is nonsensical.
Are you suggesting by the parentheses that these two terms are interchangeable?

 

[origin]

of course, a photon (electron) is an element of chemistry, but is it a chemical?

A photon is not an electron.
A photon is not a chemical.
An electron is not a chemical.
An atom is not a chemical

A decent definition of a chemical substance can be found on wiki.

 

[Write4U]

This may illustrate what I was trying to say.

http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html

A photon is not an electron.
A photon is not a chemical.
An electron is not a chemical.
An atom is not a chemical

Right, incorrectly posited by me. I was trying to draw an analogy, but did not think it through.

Does the photon have mass? After all, it has energy and energy is equivalent to mass.

Photons are traditionally said to be massless. This is a figure of speech that physicists use to describe something about how a photon's particle-like properties are described by the language of special relativity.

When the particle is at rest, its relativistic mass has a minimum value called the "rest mass" m rest. The rest mass is always the same for the same type of particle. For example, all protons, electrons, and neutrons have the same rest mass; it's something that can be looked up in a table. As the particle is accelerated to ever higher speeds, its relativistic mass increases without limit.

http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html

I think this must have stuck in my mind;

This was before it was even known what cathode rays actually were! It was seven years later that J. J. Thomson showed that cathode rays consist of streams of particles, to be called electrons, and made more precise measurements of their mass-to-charge ratio again using a cathode ray tube.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_rest_mass
...>

 

[Write4U]

Interesting;

“An electron has a natural orbit that it occupies, but if you energize an atom you can move its electrons to higher orbitals [shells]. A photon of light is produced whenever an electron in a higher-than-normal orbit falls back to its normal orbit. During the fall from high-energy to normal-energy, the electron emits a photon — a packet of energy — with very specific characteristics. The photon has a frequency, or color, that exactly matches the distance the electron falls.”

Currently light is known as being of wave forms called fields and particle forms called photons.

https://www.energygroove.net/science/atoms-electrons-photons/

 

[DaveC426913]

Wow, are we ever off-topic.

 

[Write4U]

Wow, are we ever off-topic.

"survival of the fittest chemistry" ??? What is the topic?

Discussing the properties of chemistry and chemical elements (matter) vs energetic elements (force) is off-topic?

Energy and Force
Words have very specific meanings in science which are not always the meanings that are used in everyday life.


The words energy and force are not interchangeable - they are not the same as each other.

A force is a push or a pull which is easily demonstrated and felt but energy is a slightly more abstract concept. They are measured in different units: force in Newton's and energy in Joules.

When a force is applied to an object, such as a supermarket trolley, the trolley accelerates and moves forwards.

Another way of describing the same situation is to say that a transfer of energy has occurred. The trolley gains kinetic (moving) energy and , as energy cannot be created or destroyed, this must involve a transfer of energy. Chemical energy in the body of the person pushing the trolley was changed into the kinetic energy of that trolley. Supermarket shopping is exhausting work!

It is the force that causes the trolley to start moving and, as it does so, it gains kinetic energy

https://www.le.ac.uk/se/centres/sci/selfstudy/egy5.htm

At what point does "natural selection" become part of the "survival of the fittest" equation?
Don't we have to define the parameters of abstractions such as "survival of the fittest", what? Living things? Or including 'everything' since the beginning?

Hazen clearly demonstrates the chemical experience of "survival of the fittest", and provides proof that chemical chirality does in practice provide a vehicle for "selection of the fittest", because poor atomic bonding will lose to the strong atomic bonds, which gain a survival advantage in the formation of consistent durable self-similar patterns, which we can give names.

 

[DaveC426913]

"survival of the fittest chemistry" ??? What is the topic?

Correct.

If you have something else you'd like to discuss, start a new topic. Stop hijacking other threads.

 

[Write4U]

Correct.

If you have something else you'd like to discuss, start a new topic. Stop hijacking other threads.

Sorry, I thought I was contributing .. I'm out.

 

[DaveC426913]

Sorry, I thought I was contributing .. I'm out.

Well, in your defense, Michael has dragged it of on a sidebar for several pages now.

I guess really there has been no contribution to the thread topic in quite some time now, so it's sort of done a 'random walk'.

 

[Michael 345]

Well, in your defense, Michael has dragged it of on a sidebar for several pages now.

And from post #4

Sure, but then why did you stop stop at chemistry? Why not say quarks, in their various groups (protons/electrons, etc) are ultimately the tools of evolution?

No, the building block - the "atom" of evolution - is the gene

 

[DaveC426913]

And from post #4

Yeah. That was on-topic - and on-point.

I appreciate the kudos, but not sure why it's necessary - other than to highlight that this thread should have ended with post 4.

 

[Write4U]

No, the building block - the "atom" of evolution - is the gene.

That's just wrong. The gene is the blue print, not the brick. Proper use of terms?

 

[Write4U]

An atom is not a chemical
A decent definition of a chemical substance can be found on wiki.

Took your advice and checked the dictionary.
This is what I found;

Atom,
Physics.

1. the smallest component of an element having the chemical properties of the element, consisting of a nucleus containing combinations of neutrons and protons and one or more electrons bound to the nucleus by electrical attraction; the number of protons determines the identity of the element.

1. and

   A compound contains atoms of different elements chemically combined together in a fixed ratio.
   [*]An element is a pure chemical substance made of same type of atom. ... Compounds contain different elements in a fixed ratio arranged in a defined manner through chemical bonds.

This seems to conflict with your posit, can you clarify?

 

[Write4U]

Well, in your defense, Michael has dragged it of on a sidebar for several pages now.

I guess really there has been no contribution to the thread topic in quite some time now, so it's sort of done a 'random walk'.

I find this mildly insulting......
I believe that the OP question was answered by my submission of Robert Hazen's lecture at Carnegie Institute of science, which I now have referenced several times, but no one seems to take notice.

Robert Hazen, qualified expert in the field of chemical evolution, definitively explains the evolution (survival of the fittest) of chemicals since the beginning of the evolutionary process.

Start at 27.45 And his definitive statement about "survival of the fittest" @ 39.45

 

[DaveC426913]

That's just wrong. The gene is the blue print, not the brick.

That would be an opinion. You are entitled to one.

 

[DaveC426913]

That's just wrong. The gene is the blue print, not the brick.

That would be an opinion. You are entitled to one. It's terrible, but you're entitled to it.

A gene is not analogous to a blueprint.
A gene would be analogous to a single mark drawn on a blueprint that contains many, many specifications.

Proper use of terms?

Since these are all metaphors, the words 'proper' and 'terms' are not applicable.

 

[Write4U]

That would be an opinion. You are entitled to one. It's terrible, but you're entitled to it.
A gene is not analogous to a blueprint.
A gene would be analogous to a single mark drawn on a blueprint that contains many, many specifications.

Hmm......

Since these are all metaphors, the words 'proper' and 'terms' are not applicable.

I can live with that........
=======================================================

Back to the O.P. and evolutionary chemical processes, I ran across this and was very intrigued by its implication.

Effect of Nucleotide State on the Protofilament Conformation of Tubulin Octamers

At the molecular level, the dynamic instability (random growth and shrinkage) of the microtubule (MT) is driven by the nucleotide state (GTP vs GDP) in the β subunit of the tubulin dimers at the MT cap. Here, we use large-scale molecular dynamics (MD) simulations and normal-mode analysis (NMA) to characterize the effect of a single GTP cap layer on tubulin octamers composed of two neighboring protofilaments (PFs). We utilize recently reported high-resolution structures of dynamic MTs to simulate a GDP octamer both with and without a single GTP cap layer. We perform multiple replicas of long-time atomistic MD simulations (3 replicas, 0.3 μs for each replica, 0.9 μs for each octamer system, and 1.8 μs total) of both octamers. We observe that a single GTP cap layer induces structural differences in neighboring PFs, finding that one PF possesses a gradual curvature, compared to the second PF which possesses a kinked conformation. This results in either curling or splaying between these PFs. We suggest that this is due to asymmetric strengths of longitudinal contacts between the two PFs. Furthermore, using NMA, we calculate mechanical properties of these octamer systems and find that octamer system with a single GTP cap layer possesses a lower flexural rigidity.

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.jpcb.8b02193

and

Microtubule

Microtubules are tubular polymers of tubulin that form part of the cytoskeleton that provides structure and shape to the cytoplasm of eukaryotic cells and some bacteria. The tubules can grow as long as 50 micrometres and are highly dynamic.

Wikipedia

Note that nucleotides are internal progenitors of an evolutionary process in microtubules.

A progenitor cell is a biological cell that, like a stem cell, has a tendency to differentiate into a specific type of cell, but is already more specific than a stem cell and is pushed to differentiate into its "target" cell.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microtubule

 

[Write4U]

Continuing on my quest, I ran across this little miracle;
https://www.ted.com/talks/drew_berry_animations_of_unseeable_biology

It's almost unimaginable that mathematics could have resulted in such exquisite forms of proto-life functions.

But 13+ billion years of bombardment of cosmic rays resulting in an exponential number of patterns (change) which, as evidenced by the initial conditions in the formation of the earth, did result in the formation and evolution of life from simple chemistry.

Hazen notes that the "chemical evolutionary process" began with the bombardment of cosmic rays on nebular clouds and the formation of chemicals including bio-chemicals as part of the inventory of cosmic elements and their expression in cognizable physically animate and inanimate patterns.....