« on: 11/07/2020 23:36:36 »
Experiments were done where cells were dehydrated and then the water was replaced by a wide range of other solvents, to see what would happen to the organic compounds of life. This was connected to the theory life can appear in other solvents.
The results were, nothing worked properly, in any other solvent, down to individual enzymes. The carbon compounds became lifeless and lacked useful function without water. Wheh water was added everything worked and life appeared. What is often attributed in life, to statistics, is actually logically explained by the co-partnership with water.
Life, as we know it, evolved in water. Water was/is the micro environment for natural selection at the nanoscale from day one. If we placed life in the Arctic region or the Amazon Jungles, each environment will set parameters that life will need to meet. Life will need to stay warm in the Arctic and say cool in the Amazon; environmental pressures that have a predetermine result. Water had potential needs and life has to conform.
The DNA was selected by the water environment. DNA would not have been selected in any other solvent. If life had evolved in alcohols or any other solvent, which there is no proof it can, other organic or silicon chemicals would need to selected, since the experiments shows that the organic chemicals selected by water, for life, do not work in these solvents.
The experiment did not demonstrate that life cannot appear in solvents other than water. Putting diesel fuel in a gasoline energy will stop it dead. Flushing it out with gasoline brings it back to life. That does not prove that diesel engines cannot exist.
Life on earth arose in a water environment. It is dependent on the specific details of the chemical reactions that take place in water or involving water. The only other polar protic solvents around with non-trivial dielectric constants happen to interfere with the life-sustaining chemical reactions that exist in earthly cells. These solvents include ammonia, propanol, ethanol and methanol. Injecting any of these into a cell will kill it because it will interfere with the life processes that developed in a water environment. If the oceans had consisted of methanol and not water, it is impossible for life to have arisen using that solvent and carrier medium instead of water?
BTW was there any attempt to flush out the other solvents with water to see if the cell came back to life? Or is it only the dehydrated and not otherwise contaminated cells that came back to life with water?
Entropy is connected to free energy by the equation G=H-TS, where G is the Gibbs free energy, H is enthalpy, T is temperature and S is entropy.
The second laws says that the S of the universe has to increase. The increase in S lowers the free energy G due to the minus sign in the equation. As universal entropy net increases, to obey the second law, the free energy of the universe gets less and less. There is less net free energy, that is usable to the universe, as time moves forward.
SLOT does not say that S has to increase. It says that S will tend to increase until equilibrium is reached. Hot coffee poured into a hypothetical perfect thermos will reach thermodynamic equilibrium at a certain temperature after it has heated the inner wall of the container. S of the system will remain constant. Notice that there will be local fluctuations. The average kinetic energy of the molecules (temperature) will remain fairly high and they will bounce off each other with random redistributions of that kinetic energy. But because the kinetic energy has no place to go, S remains constant.
It is the conditions that pertain in the universe that will lead to an overall increase in entropy (S) with as close to statistical certainty as should satisfy any nitpickers and then some. But notice that local entropy reductions will remain possible as long as there is gravity. Local fluctuations in mass distribution due to random movements of gravitationally bound dust clouds and the like can still lead to star formation/reactivation with large entropy reduction in the neighborhood. SLOT is statistical, not a force in itself.
The universe was originally very hot so the T term or temperature was extreme. The early universe was making free energy unusable at a very high rate. Stars and fusion and extreme heat continue this tradition. There is less universal free energy, in play today, than there was yesterday.
The cooling of the universe was due to its expansion, not SLOT. If the universe did not expand, the high temperature would remain just like in the coffee in the perfect thermos. But even if the universe did not expand, there would still be local fluctuations and regional gravitational collapses. If conditions were suitable, star formation and resulting fusion reactions or something comparable could still occur. Why? Because all mass in the universe has a positive sign and therefore gravity is always ‘down’. That is the reason that we still notice SLOT after 13+ billion years. There are pockets of low entropy today because of positive mass leading to gravity.
What we call time, moves in the direction of diminishing useable free energy. Entropy and time share the feature of moving in one net direction; forward. Entropy has to increase and time has to move forward. The net loss of useable energy creates a moving target in time.
In the equations of science (except SLOT) time does not move. The time value can be set at some arbitrary point and the system trajectory observed before and after that point. The perceived arrow of time, the fact that we notice certain kinds of differences between past and future, is due to positive mass leading to unidirectional gravity and SLOT.
What has screwed up science, are the clocks that we use to measure time. Clocks cycle which is not how time behaves. This is how energy and waves behave, but not time. Clocks are the wrong analogy for time since they model time as a waves even though time only moves in one direction.
This is like using a thermometer to measure length. It can be done with some ingenuity; expansivity, However, this will perpetuate a practical misconception that time is somehow connected to energy waves. Free energy is TS and S does not cycle. Clocks do a better measuring TS, since TS is a measure of energy.
Time is not energy waves. It is a dimension along which development occurs. I am not familiar with any model that treats time as waves.