Origin of Life (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, December 26, 2009, 20:51 (5242 days ago) @ dhw

dhw,-> Now, I shall ask you in advance to forgive me for my obtuseness, but I don't suppose I'm the only reader of these posts who needs guidance. Bearing in mind that the nature of 96% of the universe remains unknown to us, how do you know the "total number" of particles? How do you know that that "total number" has always been the same, and how do you know the "total number" of possible combinations, say, 4.5 ... 3.5 billion years ago? Why do you work according to a formula of time and particles, and not a formula of time and the number of possible combinations of particles? And how do you calculate the odds for/against a combination when you don't actually know what that combination is? 
> -I'll answer these as succinctly as possible. -The total number of particles in the universe is extrapolated from information that physicists have collected while studying our universe with astronomers and cosmologists. The full range has a HUGE degree of error, from 10^-72 to 10^87. that's a range of 16 orders of magnitude. I know a little bit about how they reason out the total number, but it rests on both the physical properties of subatomic particles and how many of those it would take in order to show us the universe as we see it today. -As for the combinations question, it is implicit in the probability distribution. You need to deduce the combination of particles that produces life, but you're pulling those particles from a finite sample. You can't just compare life's combination to time--it isn't enough because you need to find that combinations chance of appearing among all the possibilities within the cosmos--which is also determined by the number of particles. -Your question about the "total number, 3.5 to 4.5 Bn years ago" is pertinent. It is fair to say that from what we currently know from chemistry, it seems preposterous that life came about. But for us to be able to say with any level of confidence that it couldn't be by chance, we can't just look at earth. The combination must be "preposterous" everywhere in the cosmos.-For the "Total Number" remaining constant; it is a physical law that matter cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed. There is no observed force in the cosmos that is "generating" matter, though from Black Holes you could argue that there is precedent for matter being... permanently sequestered. Information that is forever lost. But at this point this is unneeded complexity though it would serve to shrink the "total number" for purposes of matter available to use. -For the question on only knowing 4% of the Universe, we have no reason at present to assert that "dark matter" or "dark energy" plays a role in the creation of life. *our* universe is the one of matter and is described extremely well by physics and chemistry both. -This... system I'm constructing, is to guide us to an eventual solution; not something that will likely happen in our lifetimes. The Final answer to your question is that once you find the combination for life, you will have your probability. (Not before, because there isn't anything to yet calculate.) -
> You are trying to provide "an accurate model for the number of attempts". Scientists talk of the "primordial soup", creating a picture of a vast cauldron into which the ingredients are thrown and stirred, constantly being mixed with one another to try out new flavours. But according to the theory of chance, there was no-one to throw and stir. The ingredients had no form of locomotion. They were at the mercy of what ... winds, waters, eruptions, explosions? All such movements are incalculable, and not one of them was "attempting" anything. They were Hoyle's bits and pieces being blown round the scrapyard. How, then, can you accurately calculate the number of "attempts" made, say, 4.5 ... 3.5 billion years ago?
> -This is a physical property of chemical reactions. The laws of physics as we know them only break down when you reverse the big bang all the way back to the singularity that caused it. 3.5-4.5 Bn yrs ago the laws of physics were the same then as they are now. A chemical reaction, whether it is biochemical, organic, or inorganic, only occurs from a transfer of energy, and a chemical reaction is an exchange of electrons--nothing more. -> I'm not trying to be awkward. These are things I simply don't understand, and I really appreciate your "playing the mathematician" and "trying to set things up to help us to reach a conclusion, one way or another...". In any case, the discussion is interesting in itself, so I hope my questions will be less of a hindrance than an aid to clarification.-Just remember that as I'm "Playing mathematician," all I'm doing is setting up what we need in order to get a solution, and leaving the rest to the future.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"