Duda Jarek

First approximation of free electron in conductor can be a plane wave. So shouldn't there be more analogies from optics? Remember that single electron can go through two slits at the same time... Photons interact with local matter (electron/photons) which results (in first approximation) in complex coefficient (n) - refractive index. It's imaginary part describes absorption - corresponds to resistance for conductor. It's real part corresponds to phase velocity/wavelength, is there analogy in free electron behavior? Different conductors have different local structure, electron distributions etc. - so maybe they have a difference in refraction index... If yes, there should be more effects from optics, like partial internal reflection, interferences ... we could use in practice. I know - electrons unlike photons interact with each other - so electron waves should quickly loose it's coherence. But maybe we could use such quantum effects on short distance in crystals? Or maybe in one dimension - imagine for example long (-CH=CH-CH=CH- ...) molecule. It's free electrons should behave like one-dimensional plane wave. Now exchange hydrogen to for example fluorine (-CF=CF-) - it still should be a good conductor, but the behavior of electrons should be somehow different ... shouldn't it have different refraction index? If yes, for example (-CF=CH-) should have intermediate... What for? Imagine for example something like anti-reflective coating from optics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-reflective_coating Let say: thick layer of higher refractive index material and thin of lower. The destructive interference in thin layer happen only from the anti-reflective side (thin layer) - shouldn't it reflect a smaller amount of photons/electrons than from the second side? If we choose reflective layer for dominant thermal energy of photons/electrons, shouldn't it spontaneously create gradient of densities? For example to change heat energy into electricity...

Maxwell's demon is something that creates spontaniously ('from nothing') gradient of temperature/pressure/concentration - reducing entropy. It doesn't have to be perfect: if one side of the mirror would just a bit more likely reflect photons - it will enforce pressure gradient. The slightest pressure gradient it would spontaneously create can be used to create work (from energy stored in heat). For example we could connect both parts to constantly equilibrate their pressure. Through this connection would dominate direction from higher to lower pressure, which we can use to create work (from heat) - for example placing there something like water wheel but made of mirrors. ----- I completely agree that we usually don't observe entropy reductions, but maybe it's because such reductions has usually extremely low efficiency, so they are usually just imperceptible, shadowed by general entropy increase... ? 2nd law is statistical mathematical property of model with assumed physics. But it was proven for extremely simplified models! And still for such simplified models was used approximation - while introducing functions like pressure, temperature we automatically forget about microscopic correlations - it's mean field approximation. Maybe these ignored small scale interactions could be use to reduce entropy... For example thermodynamics assumes that energy quickly equilibrate with environment ... but we have eg.ATP, which stores own energy in much more stable form then surrounding molecules, be converted into work... ------------------------------------------ I apologies for the two-way mirror example, I generally feel convinced now, that they work only because the difference in amount of light - the effect while looking on dark glasses could be explained for example by their curvature. When I was thinking about it, I had a picture of destructive interference from anti-reflective coating. But let's look at such coating... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-reflective_coating Let say: thick layer of higher refractive index material and thin of lower. The destructive interference in thin layer happen only from anti-reflective side (thin layer) - shouldn't it reflect a bit smaller amount of photons than the second side? ... create gradient of pressure in photon containment - reducing entropy.

Everybody has seen two-way mirror - transparent from one side, reflective from the second ... isn't that Maxwell's demon for photons? Ok - it's not perfect - it absorbs some photons increasing own heat and emits thermal photons - so it can stay in thermal equilibrium with environment. Let's take a container for photons (covered with mirrors), now place two-way mirror in thermal equilibrium with photon gas inside, dividing container into two parts. The density of photons on the reflective side should be larger than on the second - so it would reduce entropy?

I was thinking about 2nd law of thermodynamics and crystallization. During this process we get higher ordering (lower entropy), but the cost is energy difference between free and bind molecule - this energy is usually just dispersed around, increasing general temperature. But what if we wouldn't allow this energy to run away randomly ... for example storing it in chemical energy of some molecule, like ATP ... That lead me to mechanisms that could allow organisms to feed directly with heat (not using thermal infrared): Let say that we have two molecules(A,B) which has larger total energy separated(E1) than when they are bind (E2<E1). Additionally there is energy barrier between these states. Now when they are bind in solution, their thermal energy statistically sometimes exceed the barrier, and they split (reducing temperature!). But to bind them back, they not only have to reach the barrier, but they have also to find each other in the solution - it's not very likely, so statistically concentration of AB is relatively small comparing to concentration of separated molecules. Now we will need a catalyst which reduce the barrier, but then use the energy difference for example to bind ADP and phosphate. For example it catches all required molecules and uses energy stored in own structure to take A and B closer, to make them reach the top of the barrier, then use energy they produce to bind ADP + P and restore own energy. I know - this enzyme would work in both directions, but concentration of AB should be small, such that the wanted direction should dominate. Is here any problem?

I see how to make the required nanodiodes for nanoantennas for thermal photons - they should use that after absorbing a photon, the electron will be excited and will slowly equalize this additional energy with its environment. So if we place something which need high energy electron nearer one side of antenna, it's more likely that electron jump through this threshold. So the whole electricity generator should look like: -conductor-threshold-antenna-conductor-threshold- and electrons will more likely go left. If the antennas are printed, above threshold could be just narrowing.

When I've met with a heat to sound article, it was written that it needs pure heat ... but when I've read physorg article I've linked - I've finally seen that it uses gradient of temperature... But what about nanoantennas? They use heat energy - thermal infrared to enforce movement of electrons. The problem is if we can change it into their regular movement - we would need diodes which would be something like Maxwell's demon for electron... I think that it's possible, because temperature describes average temperature of molecules. But their electrons have completely different behavior - are much faster, have different energies, move along scaffolding made of molecules ... There are two different thermodynamics there! Of course there are correspondences/interactions between them, but there is also some independence we may be able to use... ? Simple counterexample to 2nd law using thermal photons: Imagine empty tube, which internal surface is covered with perfect mirror. Now near it's one end place two separators - reflective on the end of the tube and transparent to its middle. Place hot gas between the separators. It's isolated thermally, but it produce thermal photons. The only way photon can escape is through the second end of the tube, so it would work as jet engine - because photons have momentum in one side, the tube has to get momentum into the second. And we have stream of photons we can use to create work somewhere else. Above example uses that despite that kinetic energy of molecules behave randomly, each one has specific movement/oscillation, which energy can be changed into ordered one - electromagnetic oscillation of photon. You will say that the problem is with perfect mirrors, but they are just a perfect isolator for thermodynamics of photons.

I was recently interested by some news that it's possible to drain energy from pure heat. I've read about two ways: use sound resonator or absorb infrared thermal radiation: http://www.physorg.com/news100141616.html http://www.physorg.com/news137648388.html Other problem is for example that while spontaneous crystallization entropy goes in 'forbidden' direction: http://www.garai-research.com/research%20statement/Entropy/Entropy.htm ... It would be nice to localize simplifications of looking to be such general theory like thermodynamics. One way of their reasons can be simplifying physics for thermodynamical model, like - it corresponds to molecules, while we can say that their electrons live in completely different world - on a scaffolding made of molecules. Their energies doesn't correspond straightforwardly, - thermodynamics usually ignores thermal radiation and it's energy. But maybe there are deeper problems - thermodynamics usually ignores internal structure - for example from two states of the same energy one can be easier accesable... What do You think about it?

Standard approach to fight with viruses is to use antigens which search for some specific place on the surface, but the problem is that the capsid is varying rapidly. What usually doesn't change is that the virus still targets to the same molecules on cell's surface - maybe we should try to use it. For example create empty liposome - water + phospholipid with specific molecules - for example CD4 and some chemokine receptors for HIV. Now if the virus would catch the bait, it will enter inside and loose its capsid - even if the liposome will be destroyed - it shouldn't longer be a threat or at least much smaller than it would be swimming in capsid. Eventually we could add inside for example reverse transcriptaze inhibitor or some RNA cutting enzyme. Imagine such stealth liposom with CD4 - it should swim through veins for a few hours catching viruses, than be consumed with it's content by the immune system - perfect scenario. And remember that every HIV virus has some version of gp120 - should catch the bait... Update: I was just told on a different forum, that research on something similar - using erythrocytes instead of lyposomes, is already in progress: http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=140400

They could also feed with heat in indirect way : hot objects emit thermal infrared (a few micrometers)... We even want to use it in much smaller temperatures for example to power MP3 players: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/320/5883/1585.pdf Maybe some of thermophiles have constructed photosynthesis for these frequencies... ?

About vibration absorption ... myosin was only example - it's functions are too directed, too complicated to be reversed in practice. But imagine a protein which is connected to cytoskeleton (for example on crossings of filaments) and catches ADP and phosphate. Now if the cell vibrates, movement of the cytoskeleton is transferred to the protein which can enforce binding the molecules into ATP. I'm not saying that it's simple, but it looks to be possible. And if yes, mother nature is extremely inventiveness creature Look how sophisticated machinery was constructed to use energy from light... About using heat - I agree that it looks even less probable... At the first spot it seems to be against classical thermodynamics - converting pure heat into different energy. But this theory is strong simplification. For example hot iron emits photon. Heat energy is random microscopic movement - a noise. The trick is to use a resonance to gather surrounding frequencies and convert them into coherent movement - light, sound ... Lately it was proved that it can be done - change heat into sound and then we can use for example piezoelectric effect to convert it into electricity: http://unews.utah.edu/p/?r=111907-2 The question is if it can be done in microscopic level using proteins and temperatures smaller than 120C? For example a molecule which can resonance to bind ADP and phosphate. If yes - evolution should have found it... We have plenty of microbes in deep earth for billions of earth - there were/are some sources of chemical energy, but generally they are starving. Scientist has problem to explain their extremely low metabolism: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;276/5313/703 Extremely low metabolism has also psychrophiles - but it's because of cold - all reactions are slowed down. It's not because of lack of energy - they usually have access to it. We are talking about thermophiles , which should have consumed most of available chemical energy sources for last billions of years and new come extremely rarely. Remember that energy is needed not only for metabolism, reproduction ... it's necessary to sustain the structure of the organism, fight with increasing entropy - especially in high temperatures! Their life would be much easier if they would be able to feed not only with chemical energy, especially when there is plenty of it in heat and tectonic vibrations around...

But water molecule has mirror reflection - the same molecule In physics taking mirror reflection is called P-transformation. This transformation isn't perfectly conserved, but the corrections are many orders of magnitude smaller than thermal noise in biochemistry - they shouldn't alter biology. http://wikibin.org/articles/chiral-life-concept.html

Thanks for constructive arguments. I'm not saying that we should do it, but that there can be possibilities - if it's true, somebody, sometimes will anyway do it! So I believe that it should be discussed to understand dangers and possibilities ... and hoped that I can find it here...

Biology has to offer many kinds of energy conversions - for example solar into ATP and later glucose. We can now take whole organisms and eg burn them to gain energy (biofuels). But remember where natural gases (and other fossil fuels) are from... Biology knows these metabolism pathway! Maybe we could take for example unicellular photosynthesizing organism and put into it genes of required proteins? Just to make it work, than take a few dozens(hundreds) of generations of artificial selection to create cheap, efficient(?) living solar panels, from which we could just pump eg. methane... About different kind of energies ... remember that in microscopic scale chemical reactions are reversible - the dominant direction depends of parameters (like ATPase H+). We know that we have mechanisms to produce heat using ATP. Now imagine that it has changed parameters to need more ATP density than there is in around - above some temperature, it should work in opposite direction - change ADP->ATP using heat! We have plenty of microbes kilometer below... what do they eat? Chemical energy of minerals? They should be about their minimum... Maybe they can feed with geothermal energy? To check it we should check if water with eg pyrolobus furmanii cool down faster than it should. If yes, a bit of artificial selection and maybe we could produce natural gas from surpluses of thermal energy in a factory. Another type of energy is vibration. Myosin can change ATP into movement. Again - with changed parameters, it should be able to work in opposite direction - if it would be attached to cytoskeleton, it should produce energy from vibrations. What for? For example to actively absorb them. For example to reduce turbulations in water... we should search for them in fishes, water mammals. Thanks of this we could produce active sound/vibration dampers, which produce energy...

Ok - latency is not good side of the scheme I've presented - simple errors can be quickly corrected, but large ones may need a lot of time... There is also problem with loosing large block of data... using ANS it's a bit problematic, but actually we can start decoding again after it. Unfortunately we are of course loosing it's content. To protect against loosing whole packets scenario, we can for example - place first let say 100 bits as the first bit of 100 first packets, next 100 bits as the second one and so on... now we have to buffer these 100 packets before we can start decoding. By blocking, I meant placing information in completely independent (eg. 7bit in Hamming) blocks - thanks of it we can easily assure short, constant latency, but we cannot 'transfer the surpluses of redundancy' to cope with fluctuations of error density because each block has independent redundancy. I agree that because of various latency it's rather unpractical for telecommunication or memories but may be useful for example for archives, which just have to survive long time... And maybe there are possible faster methods which allows to such redundancy transfers? Thanks of this, we could use smaller amount of redundancy - not according to pessimistic density of errors, but only a bit above average density - it's usually a few orders of magnitude smaller...

But it still can happen... and it's slow and maybe we could use less redundancy to achieve similar safeness... We are adding constant density of redundancy, but errors doesn't have to come with constant density - it can fluctuate - sometimes is above average, sometimes beyond. If are above, they can exceed safe amount that our redundancy can cope with. If is beyond - we've placed there more redundancy than it was required - we waste some capacity. I'm saying that we could transfer these surpluses to help with difficult cases! To do it we shouldn't separate information by placing it in blocks. It have to be one stream that can say that something has just been wrong - we don't see the pattern(redundancy) we've placed there - we have to try to fix neighborhood of this point until the pattern emerge again as it should.

You mean encoding polynomial coefficients by values in more than degree number of points? I agree that it's great method but still pessimistic local arrangement of errors destroys whole block. Besides is very slow in decoding... This standard approach takes some blocks of the data and enlarge it to protect against some specific set of errors. We loose whole block if we get out of this set. I want to show that it's not the only way - that we can use not a small block to locate errors inside, but be able to use potentially all succeeding bits. So even if errors creates some pessimistic pattern, like clustering around a point, investing a large amount of time we could still be able to repair it.

Standard data correction methods, has some maximal number of errors they can correct. For example Hamming (7,4) uses 3 additional checksum bits for 4 bits of information - it works fine when there is at most 1 error per block of 7 bits. We use quite large redundancy, but is it safe now? The problem is with pessimistic cases - if expected error rate is 1/100 bits, still quite often it can happen that we have 2 errors in some of 7 bit blocks. I would like to propose some statistical approach to data correction, which allow to protect against such pessimistic cases. Thanks of this we can for example reduce redundancy to achieve similar safeness. The trick is to use a very precise coding - such that any error would make that the following decoded sequence should be completely random 0/1 sequence (p(0)=p(1)=1/2). For example a block ciphers, which uses previous block to calculate the following one, but there is much better coding for it I will say later about. Now - add to the information some easily recognizable redundancy - for example insert '1' between each digit. If while decoding it occurs that there is '0' in one of these places - that means we had some error before. Knowing statistical characteristics of expected errors, we can make list of most possible errors in such cases, ordered by their possibility - on the top of this list there should be 'switched previous bit', ... after a while there can appear 'switched two bits:...'. This list can be very large. Now if we know that there (nearby) appeared some error, we take this list position by position, correct as it was really this case (switch some bits) and try to decode further fixed number of bits (a few dozens). If everything is ok - we get only '1' on selected positions - we can assume that it was this error. If not - try the next one from the list. This list can be generated online - using large amount of time we could repair even badly damaged transmission. While creating the list, we have to remember that errors can appear also in succeeding bits. Using block ciphers is a bit nasty - slow, we have large blocks to find errors ... There is new coding just ideal for above purpose - Asymmetric Numeral Systems (ANS) - new entropy coder, which has very nice properties for cryptography ... and data correction - it's much faster than block ciphers and uses small blocks of various length. Here for example is demonstration about it: http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/DataCompressionUsingAsymmetricNumeralSystems/ What do You think about it?

SF writer, Greg Bear (http://www.gregbear.com/blog/display.cfm?id=982), pointed me out that we need viruses - the point is that we use some parts (eg capsid) of REV (retrovirus which is in our DNA) in some essential mechanisms, so we can't replace it to something neutral. But over this millions of years, this capsids have been optimized for our purposes. Maybe it's good point for viruses to begin evolution, but there is still a long way, counted in thousands-millions of years. Viruses for evolution requires friendly environment - cells. Ours has quite good protection, much better then when viruses evolved last time. We can also think about transforming only eg human, and use original bacterial flora, which could be compatible (after teaching the immune system)? I've received a long letter from Steve Winter. One of many things he mentioned was that " there was a study where a group fed some bacteria chiral food, and it eventually evolved the ability to eat the food". It's large problem, but I think they should have much more problems with evolution of interactions (like aggressiveness) with chiral organism, and in supported by us chiral ecosystem, they should be dominated... And they usually die with the carrier. But the largest benefit from chiral life are viruses - let's say that we can manage with microorganisms, but elimination of viruses looks hopeless http://virology.wordpress.com/ And the lack of them should slow down the evolution of bacterias, making the creation of stable ecosystem easier. What are the costs of such project? The most of the cost is to transform a few cells of each needed specie - I think that required technology should be standard in a few dozens of years. Then we have to replace seeds for a few fields, clone some cattle ... and humans for adoption... The replacement process can be very slow. And the income ... HEALTH ... crop production ... pests ... maybe to be or not to be for natural Martian life until terraforming

How to make such prokaryote? Huge problem is to create chiral enzymes, I will sketch in a moment how how I imagine that. Now take a solution of phospholipids, it will automatically create a bubble, fill the membrane with proteins, pump DNA, ... , ATP ... and voilla About the other parts of it... The cell should 'live' in specyfic, precise conditions, without most of them. Then it should try to stabilise itself, rebuild what's needed (like the wall). This would give us time to do something to allow it to reproduce. Having this small factories, synthesis of elements will be simple. But the real problem is with eukaryote. I think we could use the original cell and just replace/add what we need... Most of the proteins work with symmetric molecues, the other we could block or do nothing with them - if we place the cell in good conditions, feed it (even artifically with eg ATP), it should be stable while 'slowly' adding chiral molecues, replacing DNA ... and after some time/generations it will replace everything itself. Here is a sketch of production the (chiral) string of protein(/DNA): Prepare a surface with with oriented lattice of something that can adhere amino acids and that they can be easly released (by light, electric current, pH, temperature...). Then 'just' print (like ink printer) or litograph (use different solutions of aminoacids and light specyfic pattern to adhere) given patterns of strings of amino acids... Then use some catalysis to join neighbours. We would have maaany copies full of errors at one time. For selection process, we can use something the correct ones would adhere to. Now we can slowly recreate bottom-up customized ecosystem... But how to do it more effective and stable? Maybe we need viruses? I have a discussion about it on http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=27078

We can use normal cell too, especially to transform eukaryote. Most of the proteins work with symmetric molecues, the other we could block or do nothing with them - if we place the cell in good conditions, feed it (even artifically with eg ATP), it should be stable while 'slowly' adding chiral molecues, replacing DNA ... and after some time/generations it will replace everything itself.

I think I have a sketch of production the (chiral) string of protein(/DNA): Prepare a surface with with oriented lattice of something that can adhere amino acids and that they can be easly released (by light, electric current, pH, temperature...). Then 'just' print (like ink printer) or litograph (use different solutions of aminoacids and light specyfic pattern to adhere) given patterns of strings of amino acids... Then use some catalysis to join neighbours. We would have maaany copies full of errors at one time. For selection process, we can use something the correct ones would adhere to. About the other parts of prokaryote... The cell should 'live' in specyfic, precise conditions, without most of them. Then it should try to stabilise itself, rebuild what's needed (like the wall). This would give us time to do something to allow it to reproduce.

How someone from a few hundrets years ago wolud react to our world... When the nature gives us the possibility - sooner or later someone will use it... This is a kind of discussion to see such possibility, dangers and prepare for them - find a good solution. And don't You think that it's better to realise such possibility now then in 50 years, when required technology should be generally availible...? Science is unstopable and maybe leads to autodestruction - maybe it's the reason why we don't see other civilisations... or maybe matured civilsations has some other motivations ...

I really do know that it isn't easy... We are just entering to this scale of control. But in hundreds of years, I think we will try to construct our own 'better' life. What is the whole talking about nanorobots? One of the first steps should be copying of the nature - chiral ecoli. Just to show our power. Will we copy more? How to make such prokaryote? Huge problem is to create chiral enzymes. We have to fasten it somehow and add amino acids one by one. Analogically with DNA... Then we will be able to copy nature's mechanisms... Now take a solution of phospholipids, it will automatically create a bubble, fill the membrane with proteins, pump DNA, ... , ATP ... and voilla Having this small factories, synthesis of elements will be simple. But the real problem is with eukaryote. But maybe we could use the original membranes and just replace what we need... Now we can slowly recreate bottom-up customized ecosystem... Human won't be on the beginning - don't worry, he will have what to eat In this thread I'm asking what to select in this customisation...

In my opinion creative thinking is something that avers us from animials... But on the other hand, how would world built of individuals look like... We've lost the point ... Sport is good example of stress that requires extra energy, but improves immune system, gives health ... and can be overdosed. About energy effectivenes - food generally isn't now required, how it will look like in 50 years? It's very difficult to stop populationg growth, especially in poor country... The other thing is that natural energy resources, even nuclear power, is predicted (if we replace to closed fuel cycle too late) to run out even in this century... Maybe this chemical energy, converted form solar, is one of our hope? We should think about more effective use of it, then just burning... Eg many mitochondria and large membranes that uses natural pomps to create pH gradient, which can be converted into electicity... What do You think about chiral life? Create simple, closed, sterile ecosystems?

About stress... Living long with good health isn't priority for evolution. It is a process that favorates organisms which can use availible energy statistically most effective to breed as many as possible. It's why we are lazy - we need motivation to use energy. Stress is a kind of such motivation - to spend extra energy for immune system, to repair something... You cannot say that it is generally 'so bad'. It is damaging, when exceeding some limit, below it is positive - it's kind of motivation, which require extra energy in the given moment, but gives long-term benefits, like sports, learning, etc... Thinking about us - humans, energy isn't the priority, it's 'good:)' that we allow stress stay on opimal level on many aspects of life. About points - I agree that only 1 is essential. Is it possible to create stable, more effective ecosystem, eg crops, while removing some parasites? And if would remove some more organisms? How to make it to stable increase effectiveness, using organism we know or artifically weaken?