The most important discovery/invention of modern time

[lpetrich]

Seems like he mixed up manganese - Mn - with magnesium - Mg. It's Mg that chlorophyll has, not Mn.

 

[Swammerdami]

There is some chemical configuration or other mechanism which facilitates the exciton tunneling to the reaction center. I'm trying to understand what that mechanism is. Given that such a mechanism is possible, evolution may bring that configuration about — no confusion there — but What is that mechanism?

If the answer is "It's just ordinary Least Action, dummy" that's fine (although I'd prefer something more detailed or explicit).

Dude. The answer is "We don't know the mechanism! We're not as clever as evolution!".

You didn't even understand the post you're responding to.

... As Jarhyn asked, "Why can't the electron be being baited to tunnel towards the Mn...?"

Enough with the Mn already! There is no Mn in chlorophyll! It's Mg!

I wrote about "manganese in photosynthesis reaction center" for which the first Google hit shows:

Manganese (Mn) is an essential micronutrient that while needed in small amounts, plays a key role in photosynthesis. Mn sparks the photosynthesis process by splitting water after Photosytem II (PSII) fixes light to initiate the conversion of CO2 and water into carbohydrates.

My synopsis specifically mentioned BOTH Mg and Mn; they serve respectively as origin and destination of the electronic exciton. That you didn't even grasp this much makes your dismissive "Dude" rather precious.,

Seems like he mixed up manganese - Mn - with magnesium - Mg. It's Mg that chlorophyll has, not Mn.

You too, hunh? Ask Bomb#20 for clarification.

I had much respect for both of you, but my confidence in this Board is abating. You'll probably see less of me in future.

 

[Jarhyn]

There is some chemical configuration or other mechanism which facilitates the exciton tunneling to the reaction center. I'm trying to understand what that mechanism is. Given that such a mechanism is possible, evolution may bring that configuration about — no confusion there — but What is that mechanism?

If the answer is "It's just ordinary Least Action, dummy" that's fine (although I'd prefer something more detailed or explicit).

Dude. The answer is "We don't know the mechanism! We're not as clever as evolution!".

You didn't even understand the post you're responding to.

... As Jarhyn asked, "Why can't the electron be being baited to tunnel towards the Mn...?"

Enough with the Mn already! There is no Mn in chlorophyll! It's Mg!

I wrote about "manganese in photosynthesis reaction center" for which the first Google hit shows:

Manganese (Mn) is an essential micronutrient that while needed in small amounts, plays a key role in photosynthesis. Mn sparks the photosynthesis process by splitting water after Photosytem II (PSII) fixes light to initiate the conversion of CO2 and water into carbohydrates.

My synopsis specifically mentioned BOTH Mg and Mn; they serve respectively as origin and destination of the electronic exciton. That you didn't even grasp this much makes your dismissive "Dude" rather precious.,

Seems like he mixed up manganese - Mn - with magnesium - Mg. It's Mg that chlorophyll has, not Mn.

You too, hunh? Ask Bomb#20 for clarification.

I had much respect for both of you, but my confidence in this Board is abating. You'll probably see less of me in future.

._.

At least you can't lose confidence in ME*.

To be fair, though, it looks like bomb COULD be parodying a creationist or  playing a fool but there's too much ambiguity there.

The possible idiocy exists in superposition with the possible parody such that the parody is failed.

Proper parody has to be on the far side of POE.

There is a principle of least action however that exists on the gradient of saving face: it will suddenly be parody, almost certainly

This least action was caused by my yeeting of idiocy in the superposition, a force expressed by an adjacent structure

...or the superposition collapses in some waste heat.

It may even somehow resolve as the reversal of the system entirely. Who knows?

My bet is on 'it was parody', however.

*Can't bleed a stone

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

"fine tunes" are, in fact, inevitable as a product of reproduction at or above replacement rate

Well said.
If there's a creater/god, evolution is its greatest creation.

Definitely, when one considers it is necessary in order for things to survive the shitty and unpredictable environment that the creator designed as well.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Electrom are excellent tunnelers.

Tunnel diode - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A tunnel diode or Esaki diode is a type of semiconductor diode that has effectively "negative resistance" due to the quantum mechanical effect called tunneling. It was invented in August 1957 by Leo Esaki, Yuriko Kurose, and Takashi Suzuki when they were working at Tokyo Tsushin Kogyo, now known as Sony.[1][2][3][4] In 1973, Esaki received the Nobel Prize in Physics, jointly with Brian Josephson, for discovering the electron tunneling effect used in these diodes. Robert Noyce independently devised the idea of a tunnel diode while working for William Shockley, but was discouraged from pursuing it.[5] Tunnel diodes were first manufactured by Sony in 1957,[6] followed by General Electric and other companies from about 1960, and are still made in low volume today.[7]

Tunnel diodes have a heavily doped positive-to-negative (P-N) junction that is about 10 nm (100 Å) wide. The heavy doping results in a broken band gap, where conduction band electron states on the N-side are more or less aligned with valence band hole states on the P-side. They are usually made from germanium, but can also be made from gallium arsenide and silicon materials.

I'd say self replication reduces to the molecular forces. Given the rihgt balance of materials and atomic interactions the ball starts rolling.

Brownian Motion.

As to complexity and variables the old Bio Dome experiment comes to mind. The idea was to create a self sustain g ecosystem.

One problem was unaccounted for soil bacteria that in the long term upset the predicted O2 balance leading to a decrease in O2.

I thought concrete absorbed the Oxygen.

I'd say self replication reduces to the molecular forces.

Except as noted, these little ribbons of carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, and assorted other shit in fact do reproduce QM phenomena, which is the point of Swammerdami's discussion.

Any system with such gradients will create tunes even to the scale of it's individual quanta.

Yeah, this is the really weird stuff, when large molecular groups (buckyballs) have the same reaction that was seemingly reserved for the individual particles. I do ponder, if you increased the scale large enough, whether the exact result would happen with baseballs... or even people.

 

[Jarhyn]

"fine tunes" are, in fact, inevitable as a product of reproduction at or above replacement rate

Well said.
If there's a creater/god, evolution is its greatest creation.

Definitely, when one considers it is necessary in order for things to survive the shitty and unpredictable environment that the creator designed as well.

To be fair, I continuously admit to the reasons why I, personally, would create an environment shitty and unpredictable in particular ways for which the spontaneous automata which arise in this system must survive: not because I invented evolution, but because I want to make ascertainments as to what is inevitably emergent of a general group of systems, and to ascertain what of this system's math is universal across such evolved entities.

I would ask a question: is all life merely replicating math engines?

Do all replicating math engines which have neural function come to understand the game theory of personal symmetry and the problems of perspective?

Do they come to have a "big bang theory" composed of something like "we can only trace this back to the first 'frame' and before that or between those our concept of time has absolutely no meaning beyond "this one atomic operation happens at every point in spacetime."

If what they see mathematically amounts to what we see, we answer a question in a way the likes of which both atheists and theists would be very uncomfortable with: our universe is indistinguishable from one created by mere people trying to answer exactly that question themselves.

So much for mysterious ways and omnibenevolence. We are more likely to figure out benevolence than they will have, by the time the experiment completes.

As I walked to the train station this mor ing I had a thought about that: if we can develop systems which emergently reach our answers faster from big bang to singularity than it takes us meat things to get those answers in that time frame, that makes us us MORE capable than the god, if only because our problems implied the same ethical and representation-theoretical answers but with "simpler" physics.

It's one thing, though, to claim that such emergence is inevitable, but for some folks you have to just do the thing and hold the artifact of it having been done in their face and say "but what the fuck is this thing then?"

 

[steve_bank]

Stating the obvious self replication does occur.

I don't know much about it, quantum biology. However it works self t replication has to be based in atomic interactions, unless you wnat to imagine something else.

Designing artificial photosynthesis would involve QM. Energy conversion at the atomic scale.

Quantum biology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Quantum biology is the study of applications of quantum mechanics and theoretical chemistry to aspects of biology that cannot be accurately described by the classical laws of physics.[1] An understanding of fundamental quantum interactions is important because they determine the properties of the next level of organization in biological systems.

Many biological processes involve the conversion of energy into forms that are usable for chemical transformations, and are quantum mechanical in nature. Such processes involve chemical reactions, light absorption, formation of excited electronic states, transfer of excitation energy, and the transfer of electrons and protons (hydrogen ions) in chemical processes, such as photosynthesis, olfaction and cellular respiration.[2] Quantum biology may use computations to model biological interactions in light of quantum mechanical effects.[3] Quantum biology is concerned with the influence of non-trivial quantum phenomena,[4] which can be explained by reducing the biological process to fundamental physics, although these effects are difficult to study and can be speculative.[5]

 

[Bomb#20]

You didn't even understand the post you're responding to.
...
I wrote about "manganese in photosynthesis reaction center" for which the first Google hit shows:

I really should have learned by now not to post that late at night...

My synopsis specifically mentioned BOTH Mg and Mn; they serve respectively as origin and destination of the electronic exciton. That you didn't even grasp this much makes your dismissive "Dude" rather precious.,

My point, and I did have one, was, why the heck are you asking "Can anyone explain the "goal-oriented" behavior of photosynthesis ... in an intuitive way?" here, of all places? While you're at it, why don't you ask us to explain what constitutes a quantum mechanical measurement in an intuitive way? And would you like us throw in an intuitive explanation for why N isn't (or is!) NP? Sure, we have bright people here, compared to the average internet crackpot hangout, but you're asking a Nobel-Prize-level question. Try the Institute for Advanced Study.

I had much respect for both of you, but my confidence in this Board is abating. You'll probably see less of me in future.

That's okay, you've lost all respect for me enough times now that apparently I can earn it back without too much trouble.

 

[lpetrich]

Both magnesium (Mg) and manganese (Mn) are involved in photosynthesis, but in different ways.

 Oxygen-evolving complex or the water-splitting complex - contains a cluster of Mn ions in its reaction center.

 Chlorophyll - contains a Mg ion in the center of its porphyrin part, much like iron in heme.

The OEC does 2H2O -> 4H+ + 4e + 2O2

The H+'s go into the surrounding water, the electrons into the Photosystem II antenna complex, and the oxygen into the air.

The PSII antenna complex then transmits captured-photon energy into the electrons, and they go into the next stage, something called plastoquinone and something called cytochrome, then to the Photosystem I antenna complex. The electrons get energized again, then go to something called ferredoxin and then to something called NADP, something that contains the vitamin niacin. The electrons can either go back to Photosystem II, making a closed loop for collecting energy, or else continue onward to biosynthesis.

This is not quite what organisms do, but it illustrates some parts of biosynthesis.
CO2 + 2H+ + 2e -> HCOOH - formic acid
HCOOH + 2H+ + 2e -> CH2O + H2O - formaldehyde
CH2O + 2H+ + 2e -> CH3OH - methanol
CH3OH + 2H+ + 2e -> CH4 + H2O - methane

Along the way, the electron transfers pump hydrogen ions into bubbles inside the chloroplasts called thylakoids. They are allowed to return, and as they do so, they assemble something called ATP. It's adenosine triphosphate, with AMP being adenosine monophosphate and ADP being adenosine diphosphate. ADP = AMP-P, ATP = AMP-P-P. These phosphate-phosphate bonds are then tapped for their energy content by various processes.

The PSI and PSII antenna complexes are what contain chlorophyll.

How do we use oxygen? A big part of it is electron transfer, but without photosynthetic antenna complexes, and ending in "cytochrome oxidase", which adds electrons to oxygen, doing 4H+ + 4e + O2 -> 2H2O.

So photosynthesis is a sort of combination of photovoltaic and electrolytic cells, and respiration metabolism a sort of fuel cell.

 

[Jarhyn]

Both magnesium (Mg) and manganese (Mn) are involved in photosynthesis, but in different ways.

 Oxygen-evolving complex or the water-splitting complex - contains a cluster of Mn ions in its reaction center.

 Chlorophyll - contains a Mg ion in the center of its porphyrin part, much like iron in heme.

The OEC does 2H2O -> 4H+ + 4e + 2O2

The H+'s go into the surrounding water, the electrons into the Photosystem II antenna complex, and the oxygen into the air.

The PSII antenna complex then transmits captured-photon energy into the electrons, and they go into the next stage, something called plastoquinone and something called cytochrome, then to the Photosystem I antenna complex. The electrons get energized again, then go to something called ferredoxin and then to something called NADP, something that contains the vitamin niacin. The electrons can either go back to Photosystem II, making a closed loop for collecting energy, or else continue onward to biosynthesis.

This is not quite what organisms do, but it illustrates some parts of biosynthesis.
CO2 + 2H+ + 2e -> HCOOH - formic acid
HCOOH + 2H+ + 2e -> CH2O + H2O - formaldehyde
CH2O + 2H+ + 2e -> CH3OH - methanol
CH3OH + 2H+ + 2e -> CH4 + H2O - methane

Along the way, the electron transfers pump hydrogen ions into bubbles inside the chloroplasts called thylakoids. They are allowed to return, and as they do so, they assemble something called ATP. It's adenosine triphosphate, with AMP being adenosine monophosphate and ADP being adenosine diphosphate. ADP = AMP-P, ATP = AMP-P-P. These phosphate-phosphate bonds are then tapped for their energy content by various processes.

The PSI and PSII antenna complexes are what contain chlorophyll.

How do we use oxygen? A big part of it is electron transfer, but without photosynthetic antenna complexes, and ending in "cytochrome oxidase", which adds electrons to oxygen, doing 4H+ + 4e + O2 -> 2H2O.

So photosynthesis is a sort of combination of photovoltaic and electrolytic cells, and respiration metabolism a sort of fuel cell.

So essentially all this is to collect free H+ to drive the michtocondrial "grinder" that crunches ATPs together.

 

[Swammerdami]

I wrote about "manganese in photosynthesis reaction center" for which the first Google hit shows:

I really should have learned by now not to post that late at night...

And I should learn not to post when in a petulant mood.

My point, and I did have one, was, why the heck are you asking "Can anyone explain the "goal-oriented" behavior of photosynthesis ... in an intuitive way?" here, of all places? While you're at it, why don't you ask us to explain what constitutes a quantum mechanical measurement in an intuitive way? And would you like us throw in an intuitive explanation for why N isn't (or is!) NP? Sure, we have bright people here, compared to the average internet crackpot hangout, but you're asking a Nobel-Prize-level question. Try the Institute for Advanced Study.

I've relied on my intuition all my life. I visualize the workings of classical computers with relative clarity. But my intuition has limits. I can read about Grover's algorithm but my brain doesn't cope with it intuitively. It almost SEEMS as though the quantum state is being "sucked" toward a goal, almost like teleology or retrocausality. Is this intuition completely wrong? Am I just a crackpot? Please be gentle if you answer in the affirmative.

I had much respect for both of you, but my confidence in this Board is abating. You'll probably see less of me in future.

That's okay, you've lost all respect for me enough times now that apparently I can earn it back without too much trouble.

Oh. Sorry. I still regard you as one of the very best posters here.

 

[Bomb#20]

I've relied on my intuition all my life. I visualize the workings of classical computers with relative clarity. But my intuition has limits. I can read about Grover's algorithm but my brain doesn't cope with it intuitively. It almost SEEMS as though the quantum state is being "sucked" toward a goal, almost like teleology or retrocausality. Is this intuition completely wrong? Am I just a crackpot? Please be gentle if you answer in the affirmative.

Of course you're just a crackpot. We all are here. I see the guys who fought all of academia's prejudices against crackpots, and determined to put quantum foundations to the test instead of just assuming like proper little non-crackpots should, were just awarded the Nobel Prize for it. (Fifty years later! If we only reward earth-shaking work after fifty years it makes Nobel Prizes pretty dang useless.) But since being a Clauser/Aspect/Zeilinger seems to be what it takes to think about how to make sense of QM without being a crackpot, it follows that for the rest of us who aren't on their level, we're faced with a choice. Either embrace our inner crackpot, or else try not to think about it. Easy choice for me.

So I rely on intuition too. And my intuition is betting on retrocausality. In one of Penrose's books he describes entanglement as the universe remembering how particles got to where they are, and an event at one particle causing information to run backwards along the spacetime trajectory of that particle to when it interacted with some other particle, and then to run forward along that other particle's spacetime trajectory until it pops back into the present and makes the other particle do whatever it needs to do to satisfy conservation laws. That's the least crazy description my intuition has heard of.

So how can retrocausality make any sense? My crackpot intuition models time as a phase change in the "growing block universe theory of time". The universe has four spatial dimensions, occupied by a substance. The substance is part solid and part liquid; the solid part is continually expanding, as the substance gradually freezes at the 3-D interface between the 4-D solid region and the 4-D liquid region. Any chunk of the solid phase of the material that forms a perfect crystal, we call "vacuum" -- what we think of as the history of the 3-D universe is actually an interconnected web of flaws in the crystal structure of the frozen region we call "the past". "The present" is the surface where freezing is going on; "the future" is the yet-to-be-frozen liquid -- a material that still has the potential to extend some flaw we call "a particle" in this direction or that, depending on the details of how it freezes. Are you still with me?

So from this point of view, a long-distance connection between entangled particles is a channel of supercooled liquid, not yet frozen solid even though it's now thoroughly embedded in a block of solid crystal that's grown up around it. A "measurement" is any symmetry-breaking disturbance that causes the growing channel of liquid to freeze one way or another at a point where it opens out onto the overall solid-liquid interface. And as with supercooled water, when it freezes at one point the whole supercooled channel immediately freezes, from one end to the other, the disturbance propagating down the channel far faster than large-scale freezing at the surface and popping out at the other end. So to somebody who can only see the overall surface it looks like magic -- two crystal flaws independently extending themselves in a mysteriously correlated way.

This is "retrocausality" in the sense that the propagating disturbance goes from the surface back into the frozen interior before it bends and heads back out to the surface; and we label those interior regions "the past" because of where they are in our coordinate system, which has three "space" axes along the freezing surface and one "time" axis perpendicular to it. But that's simply large-scale geometry. At the fine scale where there's a tube of supercooled liquid leading along the "time" axis, there's still a consistent ordering of events in which causes precede effects. There are no closed time loops. It isn't real time-travel; it's very fast space-travel that only looks like time-travel because the geometry of the phase interface where the universe freezes looks different at different scales of magnification.

So to sum all that up, if you call me a crackpot I totally deserve it.

 

[FreethoughtPariah]

But we need to be capturing WAY more than we use.

True, but we can start with going carbon neutral first, growing food in factories can help with that.

Carbon neutral, yeah, right. Beam him up Scotty.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But we need to be capturing WAY more than we use.

True, but we can start with going carbon neutral first, growing food in factories can help with that.

Carbon neutral, yeah, right. Beam him up Scotty.

While most efforts towards carbon capture are dismal failures that doesn't mean the concept is impossible. Want actual carbon capture? Grow trees (can be fast-growing trash even) and store the wood someplace dry.

 

[Jarhyn]

But we need to be capturing WAY more than we use.

True, but we can start with going carbon neutral first, growing food in factories can help with that.

Carbon neutral, yeah, right. Beam him up Scotty.

While most efforts towards carbon capture are dismal failures that doesn't mean the concept is impossible. Want actual carbon capture? Grow trees (can be fast-growing trash even) and store the wood someplace dry.

Actually, hemp is much faster.

But yes, that, filtered sunlight, and making a large artificial cave/tank, lined with lead or just a lot of mountain, and then also storing cesium waste (any high rad material with less than 1000 years of "fuck you" in it) it to sterilize the carbon pool long term.

Just mark it well, and make every effort to post that it is both there and to not touch it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But we need to be capturing WAY more than we use.

True, but we can start with going carbon neutral first, growing food in factories can help with that.

Carbon neutral, yeah, right. Beam him up Scotty.

While most efforts towards carbon capture are dismal failures that doesn't mean the concept is impossible. Want actual carbon capture? Grow trees (can be fast-growing trash even) and store the wood someplace dry.

Actually, hemp is much faster.

But yes, that, filtered sunlight, and making a large artificial cave/tank, lined with lead or just a lot of mountain, and then also storing cesium waste (any high rad material with less than 1000 years of "fuck you" in it) it to sterilize the carbon pool long term.

Just mark it well, and make every effort to post that it is both there and to not touch it.

How long does hemp last, though? And you're not going to sterilize it with cesium. It takes a lot to fry all the microbes, but if you keep it dry they are not going to be a problem.

 

[Jarhyn]

But we need to be capturing WAY more than we use.

True, but we can start with going carbon neutral first, growing food in factories can help with that.

Carbon neutral, yeah, right. Beam him up Scotty.

While most efforts towards carbon capture are dismal failures that doesn't mean the concept is impossible. Want actual carbon capture? Grow trees (can be fast-growing trash even) and store the wood someplace dry.

Actually, hemp is much faster.

But yes, that, filtered sunlight, and making a large artificial cave/tank, lined with lead or just a lot of mountain, and then also storing cesium waste (any high rad material with less than 1000 years of "fuck you" in it) it to sterilize the carbon pool long term.

Just mark it well, and make every effort to post that it is both there and to not touch it.

How long does hemp last, though? And you're not going to sterilize it with cesium. It takes a lot to fry all the microbes, but if you keep it dry they are not going to be a problem.

The point is to soup it back into a hydrocarbon. Cesium is more than enough to sterilize meat for packing, at any rate, and having the whole pool of it well mixed with glass-bead-sealed cesium, mixed with gravel, is going to either give us some really cool radiation resistance mutations, or a bunch of hydrocarbon sludge.

 

[Swammerdami]

Carbon neutral, yeah, right. Beam him up Scotty.

Actually, hemp is much faster.

Hemp? Most of the people I know burn their hemp up as soon as they get their hands on it. How does that help sequester carbon?

 

[Jarhyn]

Carbon neutral, yeah, right. Beam him up Scotty.

Actually, hemp is much faster.

Hemp? Most of the people I know burn their hemp up as soon as they get their hands on it. How does that help sequester carbon?

Ever been to a shake party? You might as well be asking "well if people are collecting syrup from those trees as soon as they have them, how can they make houses from the lumber."

In fact the extraction of the cannabinoids leaves almost as much plant pulp behind as it started with.

 

[barbos]

But we need to be capturing WAY more than we use.

True, but we can start with going carbon neutral first, growing food in factories can help with that.

Carbon neutral, yeah, right. Beam him up Scotty.

While most efforts towards carbon capture are dismal failures that doesn't mean the concept is impossible. Want actual carbon capture? Grow trees (can be fast-growing trash even) and store the wood someplace dry.

You can turn wood into carbon and store it instead, will take less space and more practical.