ChatterBank7 mins ago
Self-Replicating Molecules.
How did certain chemicals combine to produce the first self-replicating molecules?
Answers
We don't know. Writings on the subject are still full of the words 'possibly' and 'perhaps'.
18:56 Wed 13th Nov 2013
A typical "amateur" who was curious, systematic and logical was the great man, Lavoisier. He was a self-funding French aristocrat and to our great loss, beheaded.
But these "amateurs" some talk about refers only to funding. Lavoisier, Mendel etc., were amongst the founders of the scientific method, i.e. they were scientists.
If "amateur" means a methodological ignoramous (even if divinely inspired, lol) then forget it - scientific/technical contribution has been zero.
SIQ.
But these "amateurs" some talk about refers only to funding. Lavoisier, Mendel etc., were amongst the founders of the scientific method, i.e. they were scientists.
If "amateur" means a methodological ignoramous (even if divinely inspired, lol) then forget it - scientific/technical contribution has been zero.
SIQ.
At any rate Khandro, your task really is to find someone who can be called an "amateur" in the sense of "having no formal scientific background and no scientific resources to speak of but still managing to produce a ground-breaking paper that revolutionises the field" ... from the last 20 years or so. If you have to go all the way back to the 19th century you also need to take into account the fact that the subject was rather less advanced back then.
jim; Correction accepted, - my lexicon says only 'philosophy and theology' the point was though, to question the validity of some interdisciplinary valuations, the last person to do that with any real authority was Newton.
As a sort of Christmas card, please go to Google images and enter 'Isaac Newton. Jean-Leon Huens'. Rgrds, K. :=)
As a sort of Christmas card, please go to Google images and enter 'Isaac Newton. Jean-Leon Huens'. Rgrds, K. :=)
Probably the last great polymath, really, was Henri Poincaré.
Anyway, in general interdisciplinary research is both harder than you might think and easier at the same time -- if that makes sense. There's currently ongoing work for example in applying combinatorics and computer science techniques to calculations in particle physics -- and indeed both subjects are learning from the other. That's one of many examples. Mathematicians and Scientists can learn from each other in surprising ways, so that while there's no-one who knows everything, there are at least many scientists capable of commenting to some extent on what's going on outside their field. It comes back to what I said about the core skills being pretty much Universal.
Anyway, in general interdisciplinary research is both harder than you might think and easier at the same time -- if that makes sense. There's currently ongoing work for example in applying combinatorics and computer science techniques to calculations in particle physics -- and indeed both subjects are learning from the other. That's one of many examples. Mathematicians and Scientists can learn from each other in surprising ways, so that while there's no-one who knows everything, there are at least many scientists capable of commenting to some extent on what's going on outside their field. It comes back to what I said about the core skills being pretty much Universal.
@SIQ
//Dear Hypo,
Thank you for taking the time to answer my ignorance-based questions. O.K. what about a Mobious Strip of zero width? Is that "string theory"? Only rhetorical light-heartedness!//
Well, even if you were yanking my chain (grin), it helped me to organise my own thoughts by typing them out.
//Love your chortle about the "singularity" playing havoc with astrophysics. Good! //
Glad you liked that. Coincidentally I spotted a thread where someone asked why matter caused space to bend which made me sit back and think "what a brilliant question!"
Every so often, I think about how often during all of the life-long learning process there have always been certain things that are blithely dished out during the explanation which are just taken on board with little further thought. The Einsteinian idea that "Matter tells space how to curve and space tells matter how to move", for example. Stretchy latex surface has a heavy sphere placed on it and marbles are rolled by to demonstrate how objects change course as they pass a planet.
Okay, it is only a teaching aid meant to get across a concept but the issue of how matter physically grabs hold something which (afaic) has no material substance and nevertheless goes about changing its shape is fundamental to real understanding of gravity yet it is completely glossed over.
//It's mostly baloney including the Big Bang theory - I think Brian Cox is just an apologist for all the rubbish and a poor one at that! He talks about unproven or wild speculations as facts! Latest desperate theory - "dark matter" - that story in both cock AND bull, lol. Sorry jim.//
By the time they'd boiled String Theory down into something that the New Scientist readership could digest across two or three pages, it just came across to me as either incomprehensible or just fanciful nonsense.
I didn't see a person accused of "reaching" until the days of internet forums and usenet. Science discussion groups I followed had frequent visits from the kind of whacky theorists jim describes, who would be greeted with such a reaction. Sadly, I find the Dark Matter concept another case of reaching, trying to shoehorn observations into a creaking old theory.
Astronomy is a hobby interest for me, astrophysics is something I've never studied at any depth. I have accepted BBT as fact (or at least as a useful working hypothesis to be getting on with) for most of my life, if only because my own lack of expertise prevents me from thinking up any valid alternative. I have also heard of Hoyle and, whilst I've never lumped him in with the out-and-out cranks of the world, I've never given his ideas much more than a cursory acknowledgement.
You are right to pointedly say "good luck getting that published" with regard to anything to do with steady state theory. That typifies some of the frustrations naomi occasionally expresses about science. It has taken on a self-sustaining, self-justifying, anti-heretical behaviour which is tantamount to adopting all the worst behaviours displayed by the religions of the world.
//Dear Hypo,
Thank you for taking the time to answer my ignorance-based questions. O.K. what about a Mobious Strip of zero width? Is that "string theory"? Only rhetorical light-heartedness!//
Well, even if you were yanking my chain (grin), it helped me to organise my own thoughts by typing them out.
//Love your chortle about the "singularity" playing havoc with astrophysics. Good! //
Glad you liked that. Coincidentally I spotted a thread where someone asked why matter caused space to bend which made me sit back and think "what a brilliant question!"
Every so often, I think about how often during all of the life-long learning process there have always been certain things that are blithely dished out during the explanation which are just taken on board with little further thought. The Einsteinian idea that "Matter tells space how to curve and space tells matter how to move", for example. Stretchy latex surface has a heavy sphere placed on it and marbles are rolled by to demonstrate how objects change course as they pass a planet.
Okay, it is only a teaching aid meant to get across a concept but the issue of how matter physically grabs hold something which (afaic) has no material substance and nevertheless goes about changing its shape is fundamental to real understanding of gravity yet it is completely glossed over.
//It's mostly baloney including the Big Bang theory - I think Brian Cox is just an apologist for all the rubbish and a poor one at that! He talks about unproven or wild speculations as facts! Latest desperate theory - "dark matter" - that story in both cock AND bull, lol. Sorry jim.//
By the time they'd boiled String Theory down into something that the New Scientist readership could digest across two or three pages, it just came across to me as either incomprehensible or just fanciful nonsense.
I didn't see a person accused of "reaching" until the days of internet forums and usenet. Science discussion groups I followed had frequent visits from the kind of whacky theorists jim describes, who would be greeted with such a reaction. Sadly, I find the Dark Matter concept another case of reaching, trying to shoehorn observations into a creaking old theory.
Astronomy is a hobby interest for me, astrophysics is something I've never studied at any depth. I have accepted BBT as fact (or at least as a useful working hypothesis to be getting on with) for most of my life, if only because my own lack of expertise prevents me from thinking up any valid alternative. I have also heard of Hoyle and, whilst I've never lumped him in with the out-and-out cranks of the world, I've never given his ideas much more than a cursory acknowledgement.
You are right to pointedly say "good luck getting that published" with regard to anything to do with steady state theory. That typifies some of the frustrations naomi occasionally expresses about science. It has taken on a self-sustaining, self-justifying, anti-heretical behaviour which is tantamount to adopting all the worst behaviours displayed by the religions of the world.
The problem is that you both seem to misunderstand what the Dark Matter idea is. It's not a "creaky old theory" precisely because we don't have one yet, at least not one that works. Once you accept the following:
- General Relativity is a good description for the shape of the Universe;
- The Standard Model of Particle Physics is a good description for all observed matter and how it interacts;
- Physical Laws are constant in space and time;
- The experimental observations of the CMB radiation are precise, accurate and correct;
then both the Big Bang Theory and the existence of Dark matter almost necessarily follow (I say almost, because there are alternative theories, see later).
The evidence for BBT consists, basically, of the following: we observe just about everything moving away from not only us, but also away from each other. It's not too much of a step to assume that there was a point when everything was close enough to be on top of each other. That in itself isn't enough, but supposing there were a Big Bang. Such a violent beginning would lead inevitably to a huge amount of energy released, billions upon billions of particle interactions spitting out trillions and trillions of energetic photons. Over time these photons would travel everywhere, and permeate space constantly, and during their travels would lose energy and "slow down" or shift into the lower energy (lower-frequency) spectrum. So you would expect to see a constant background noise everywhere you look. And you do!
The CMB radiation is the most powerful evidence not only for the Big Bang Theory, but also against the Steady State Theory (or CC as SIQ calls it). If someone could formulate a SST that accounts for this observation then people might take it more seriously, but despite years of trying no-one has been able to do so. That is why there is a perceived "bias" against SST, not because it's conceptually difficult but because it fails experimentally. If someone can come along and fix that then people would start listening again.
Which brings us to Dark Matter. Having got as far as accepting that GR is a good theory, that gives us a number of ways of performing tests to "weigh" galaxies, or to weigh the Universe as a whole, and compare that with the Universe we can also see. Such calculations invariably mismatch, and yet if you accept that the methods work (because the same ideas are used to weigh the Sun, for example, and agree there), then both calculations are correct. "Dark Matter", then, is simply the way to explain why the two agree. There must be some missing matter that we cannot see but still has mass and so feels gravity.
As to what Dark Matter is, who knows? We're looking for it at the moment, and there are all sorts of theories that can explain its origin. So far no theory has been confirmed -- but the experimental picture is clear. We can't see all of the Universe, and something is missing, and here's hoping that we find it soon.
SIQ: I think most of the above is in answer to Hypo, but hopefully there is enough in it to answer your own post. I think it's the case that those who are most critical of Science are those whose only experience of it is through the popular media, which hardly paints the truest picture.
- General Relativity is a good description for the shape of the Universe;
- The Standard Model of Particle Physics is a good description for all observed matter and how it interacts;
- Physical Laws are constant in space and time;
- The experimental observations of the CMB radiation are precise, accurate and correct;
then both the Big Bang Theory and the existence of Dark matter almost necessarily follow (I say almost, because there are alternative theories, see later).
The evidence for BBT consists, basically, of the following: we observe just about everything moving away from not only us, but also away from each other. It's not too much of a step to assume that there was a point when everything was close enough to be on top of each other. That in itself isn't enough, but supposing there were a Big Bang. Such a violent beginning would lead inevitably to a huge amount of energy released, billions upon billions of particle interactions spitting out trillions and trillions of energetic photons. Over time these photons would travel everywhere, and permeate space constantly, and during their travels would lose energy and "slow down" or shift into the lower energy (lower-frequency) spectrum. So you would expect to see a constant background noise everywhere you look. And you do!
The CMB radiation is the most powerful evidence not only for the Big Bang Theory, but also against the Steady State Theory (or CC as SIQ calls it). If someone could formulate a SST that accounts for this observation then people might take it more seriously, but despite years of trying no-one has been able to do so. That is why there is a perceived "bias" against SST, not because it's conceptually difficult but because it fails experimentally. If someone can come along and fix that then people would start listening again.
Which brings us to Dark Matter. Having got as far as accepting that GR is a good theory, that gives us a number of ways of performing tests to "weigh" galaxies, or to weigh the Universe as a whole, and compare that with the Universe we can also see. Such calculations invariably mismatch, and yet if you accept that the methods work (because the same ideas are used to weigh the Sun, for example, and agree there), then both calculations are correct. "Dark Matter", then, is simply the way to explain why the two agree. There must be some missing matter that we cannot see but still has mass and so feels gravity.
As to what Dark Matter is, who knows? We're looking for it at the moment, and there are all sorts of theories that can explain its origin. So far no theory has been confirmed -- but the experimental picture is clear. We can't see all of the Universe, and something is missing, and here's hoping that we find it soon.
SIQ: I think most of the above is in answer to Hypo, but hopefully there is enough in it to answer your own post. I think it's the case that those who are most critical of Science are those whose only experience of it is through the popular media, which hardly paints the truest picture.
It should be remembered, of course, that the Steady-State Theory was the predominant theory of the history of the Universe for the early part of the 20th Century. And then experimental data came along to kill it off. It certainly wasn't thrown out or suppressed because no-one liked it. It was thrown out because it was wrong.
Incidentally, here is a recent paper exploring the experimental constraints on alternatives to Dark Matter:
http://
The conclusion of the paper is that they don't work without Dark Matter. This is, needless to say, not brilliant if you were trying to avoid using such a theory. The main point, though, is that research into alternatives is still going on. It's just not yielding anything fruitful as yet.
Also, here is a paper on the current Steady-State model (known as QSSC):
http://
There are fewer papers on QSSC than in Big Bang Cosmology, but the idea is still researched by some.
http://
The conclusion of the paper is that they don't work without Dark Matter. This is, needless to say, not brilliant if you were trying to avoid using such a theory. The main point, though, is that research into alternatives is still going on. It's just not yielding anything fruitful as yet.
Also, here is a paper on the current Steady-State model (known as QSSC):
http://
There are fewer papers on QSSC than in Big Bang Cosmology, but the idea is still researched by some.
I apologise for my use of the expression "creaky old theory" which was, in fact, in referece to BBT not about Dark Matter which, to me, is a 'new' thing. New being a flexible term in my personal lexicon denoting "last 20-odd years". ;-)
At one time, I was under the mistaken impression that Dark Matter was invoked because someone 'wanted' the universe to decelerate its expansion and then reverse, towards a Big Crunch, as that opened the possibility of another BB and onwards, for infinity.
I am now given to understand that it was invoked because galaxies cannot maintain their observed shapes by the weight of visible matter alone.
I used to like watching the froth on my stirred coffee form spiral arm patterns, so the idea of underlying dark matter has a great appeal.
You're also spot on about how the media bowdlerises science for public consumption. I don't think they have much choice. There would be even less public understanding of science were it not for this. Science itself needs to inspire youngsters to pursue their learning of it. You don't do that by exposing them to all the advanced mathematics at the outset.
(which is what you get if you look at certain wikipedia pages which are not pitched at newcomers to the material)
At one time, I was under the mistaken impression that Dark Matter was invoked because someone 'wanted' the universe to decelerate its expansion and then reverse, towards a Big Crunch, as that opened the possibility of another BB and onwards, for infinity.
I am now given to understand that it was invoked because galaxies cannot maintain their observed shapes by the weight of visible matter alone.
I used to like watching the froth on my stirred coffee form spiral arm patterns, so the idea of underlying dark matter has a great appeal.
You're also spot on about how the media bowdlerises science for public consumption. I don't think they have much choice. There would be even less public understanding of science were it not for this. Science itself needs to inspire youngsters to pursue their learning of it. You don't do that by exposing them to all the advanced mathematics at the outset.
(which is what you get if you look at certain wikipedia pages which are not pitched at newcomers to the material)
Dear Jim,
Thank you for fulfilling your promise to attempt to address my problems with BBT. Wow, I need more time to read and re-read it but will keep my promise and will not bother you further on this matter further.
You have been very kind and hard-working. You are typical of a scientist by vocation rather than a time-serving one.
With my many thanks,
SIQ.
P.S. Jomifl please don't extend the BBT discussion any further. Jim, Hypo and I have said enough in respect of this diversion from the main thread (whatever that may be).
Thank you for fulfilling your promise to attempt to address my problems with BBT. Wow, I need more time to read and re-read it but will keep my promise and will not bother you further on this matter further.
You have been very kind and hard-working. You are typical of a scientist by vocation rather than a time-serving one.
With my many thanks,
SIQ.
P.S. Jomifl please don't extend the BBT discussion any further. Jim, Hypo and I have said enough in respect of this diversion from the main thread (whatever that may be).
Dear Hypo,
Ty so much for your ideas on the BBT. Everything I've said to Jim applies to you as well. You are great scientific thinker and debater whom I admire.
Again I thank you for your hard work.
I might raise the issue of "peer review" later. It might please Khandro and others if I express my doubts about what I regard as a progressively corrupt system within science. Depends if I can raise the energy or avoid side-tracks.
With My Many Thanks,
Kindest Regards,
SIQ.
Ty so much for your ideas on the BBT. Everything I've said to Jim applies to you as well. You are great scientific thinker and debater whom I admire.
Again I thank you for your hard work.
I might raise the issue of "peer review" later. It might please Khandro and others if I express my doubts about what I regard as a progressively corrupt system within science. Depends if I can raise the energy or avoid side-tracks.
With My Many Thanks,
Kindest Regards,
SIQ.
It's really not too much of a bother. I see part of my role as trying to share what I know and love about Science to the wider world, to those who perhaps don't have as much training and background. Sometimes it's clear that people aren't all that interested in what I have to say, or at least miss the point. Maybe I need to try harder.
There are, as I see it, two main problems in communicating Science, and both of them are pretty hard to get around. Firstly, "all the advanced mathematics" is so central to Science that it's difficult to explain some concepts without it. Going back to that classic "stretchy latex surface" description of GR, it's a very good analogy but struggles to capture some details, and undoubtedly leaves a lot still to be explained. On the other hand... well, this xkcd cartoon captures the problem pretty much perfectly:
http://
Scientists whose actual job it is to communicate their subject to the public have to tread this difficult line between hiding the complexity but also revealing it -- some of them do a great job, but the overall message seems to me to be a bit of a lie about what Science actually is. As much as it will inspire some people to learn more about the subject, at least some of those people will presumably be disillusioned once they find all the maths that was hidden. At least one person on AB typified this problem when they said something about loving physics but hating the maths -- which I view as a contradiction in terms. Physics is the maths of the real world, and Chemistry is Physics applied to the electron, and biology is the physics of large systems, and god knows how much maths there is in experiment, most of it heavy statistical work.
The net effect of this is that there is some sort of idea, I think, that Science is a sort of modern philosophy, where all the great discoveries have been arrived at by people sitting down and just thinking, as the Classical Greeks used to. To some extent perhaps this is true, but the framework in which that thought occurs is constrained far more by mathematics than it is by the sort of abstract thought that leads people to, say, the "unknown and unknowable" ideas we've seen bouncing around. And of course on top of that there is a further constraint that the ideas must be testable in the real world and must pass the test.
The second great lie is a more subtle one, but is also so deep as to run even in the Science world itself. Read any paper and, as far as you might be able to understand it, it's clear that the papers are usually brief, and final results are presented in a clear and logical order. Of course, this didn't happen before the paper was released -- and instead the work that went into writing it was the equivalent of finding your way through a maze without a map or even any idea of where the centre was. The work I'm doing at the moment is a pretty minor piece of research but still shows this feature off pretty well. I'd say that I've spent well over half of my time working to try and get the computer doing what I want, and most of the remainder trying to sort out minutiae or following dead ends, none of which will ever see the light of day. Instead the final result will be sort, brief and present the appearance of being clear and straightforward. It was anything but! But all papers are like that, and the false trails that came first are pushed to one side and ignored. There's a good reason for this: it's a bit distracting to double the length of a paper just to list all the failures (some trivial). But of course the end result is that it looks a bit like one approach only was taken and all others were ignored. Not so, and my own work is hardly unique in that regard. All of Science is like that. I think that's partly why it looks a bit closed and elitist, and perhaps we need to talk more about our failures.
Anyway, thanks for the replies Hypo and SIQ, and if you do have any more questions feel free to ask.
There are, as I see it, two main problems in communicating Science, and both of them are pretty hard to get around. Firstly, "all the advanced mathematics" is so central to Science that it's difficult to explain some concepts without it. Going back to that classic "stretchy latex surface" description of GR, it's a very good analogy but struggles to capture some details, and undoubtedly leaves a lot still to be explained. On the other hand... well, this xkcd cartoon captures the problem pretty much perfectly:
http://
Scientists whose actual job it is to communicate their subject to the public have to tread this difficult line between hiding the complexity but also revealing it -- some of them do a great job, but the overall message seems to me to be a bit of a lie about what Science actually is. As much as it will inspire some people to learn more about the subject, at least some of those people will presumably be disillusioned once they find all the maths that was hidden. At least one person on AB typified this problem when they said something about loving physics but hating the maths -- which I view as a contradiction in terms. Physics is the maths of the real world, and Chemistry is Physics applied to the electron, and biology is the physics of large systems, and god knows how much maths there is in experiment, most of it heavy statistical work.
The net effect of this is that there is some sort of idea, I think, that Science is a sort of modern philosophy, where all the great discoveries have been arrived at by people sitting down and just thinking, as the Classical Greeks used to. To some extent perhaps this is true, but the framework in which that thought occurs is constrained far more by mathematics than it is by the sort of abstract thought that leads people to, say, the "unknown and unknowable" ideas we've seen bouncing around. And of course on top of that there is a further constraint that the ideas must be testable in the real world and must pass the test.
The second great lie is a more subtle one, but is also so deep as to run even in the Science world itself. Read any paper and, as far as you might be able to understand it, it's clear that the papers are usually brief, and final results are presented in a clear and logical order. Of course, this didn't happen before the paper was released -- and instead the work that went into writing it was the equivalent of finding your way through a maze without a map or even any idea of where the centre was. The work I'm doing at the moment is a pretty minor piece of research but still shows this feature off pretty well. I'd say that I've spent well over half of my time working to try and get the computer doing what I want, and most of the remainder trying to sort out minutiae or following dead ends, none of which will ever see the light of day. Instead the final result will be sort, brief and present the appearance of being clear and straightforward. It was anything but! But all papers are like that, and the false trails that came first are pushed to one side and ignored. There's a good reason for this: it's a bit distracting to double the length of a paper just to list all the failures (some trivial). But of course the end result is that it looks a bit like one approach only was taken and all others were ignored. Not so, and my own work is hardly unique in that regard. All of Science is like that. I think that's partly why it looks a bit closed and elitist, and perhaps we need to talk more about our failures.
Anyway, thanks for the replies Hypo and SIQ, and if you do have any more questions feel free to ask.
Jim, I've been reading this thread at intervals with great interest as a fascinated and inquisitive member of the public, I can say your explanations enable me, at least, to understand things a little better so, at the risk of appearing patronising, you're doing a great job!
Naive question: could dark matter be what the universe is expanding into, or does the presence of black holes preclude this?
Naive question: could dark matter be what the universe is expanding into, or does the presence of black holes preclude this?
Thanks Zacs
In answer to the naive question: Sadly no. Dark matter is inside the Universe and is everywhere, particularly near the centre of galaxies. The "space the Universe is expanding into" doesn't exist until the Universe creates it. This is one of those things that I don't fully understand myself, so I can't really provide a better explanation. But there is (presumably) nothing outside the Universe, and the expansion as such is about things moving away from each other and space getting bigger, rather than, as someone standing outside might see, a Universe that's inflating like a balloon.
In answer to the naive question: Sadly no. Dark matter is inside the Universe and is everywhere, particularly near the centre of galaxies. The "space the Universe is expanding into" doesn't exist until the Universe creates it. This is one of those things that I don't fully understand myself, so I can't really provide a better explanation. But there is (presumably) nothing outside the Universe, and the expansion as such is about things moving away from each other and space getting bigger, rather than, as someone standing outside might see, a Universe that's inflating like a balloon.
Latest Posts
Merci Beaucoup Pour Rien Le Francais
News8 mins ago
Crosswords12 mins ago
ChatterBank17 mins ago
So What Do Our Resident Bocialivts...
News20 mins ago
