Proton Head

Hello, since I really know nothing of physics I would be greatfull if I could get answers for questions bugging my mind. 1. If from a viewpoint of an observer at rest, the mass of a moving particle approaches infinity as the speed of the particle approaches the speed of light, then why according to the observer at rest doesn't the "pull" of gravity originating from the moving object approach infinity? 2. What does a (matter) wave in quantum physics mean? What's so wavy about the matter? I know they call a wave on a string a wave since a point of the string oscillates between 2 fixed points. Also electromagnetic radiation is said to be a wave since its the result of an oscillating electric and magnetic field between 2 fixed values. However what is oscillating in the matter? Or is anything? 3. If you cannot describe the state of matter/energy with a particle model nor a wave model, alone in all situations, then why don't they construct a new model which allows a description of matter/energy in all situations? 4. Suppose you travelled back in time by turning the flow of time in a negative direction. Wouldn't this mean that events would happen backwards? So in others words if you travelled into a time before you were born, woudn't you be just a collection of atoms roaming the universe? And if you travelled into a time when you were born but younger, would you even realize that you had time travelled, since memories of such events weren't on your brains at the time to where you travelld? 5. If it was possible to bring your present memories into the past, wouldn't it violate the uncertainty principle, since after you had seen the results of events you could in the past make accurate statements about the present state. Thanks!

Wrong. It works. Newtonian mechanics tells us how points with certain mathematical values behave in space. As even at high speeds the particles follow the exact same laws then it works. It's just us calculators who are defining wrong mathematical values to the particles, so we are not following the principles of Newtonian mechanics. To make it clearer I have to add that I wasn't commenting on the usefulness of relativity, I'm just tired of how people view it as something grand. That's a good conclusion. However if you arrive at such a conclusion that someone is wrong, then you by definition should know what's right, which I doubt you do since all you can say is that others are wrong. All in all I think you misunderstood my point which was that I am tired of people drawing non-physical meanings out of the predicments of quantum mechanics, such as: The world is nondeterministic!... ...As these are only the result of a flawed view of the world, which arises from the fact that we have to divide the continuous world into imaginary parts and interact with them, in order to receive information out of it.

Wrong. It works. Newtonian mechanics tells us how points with certain mathematical values behave in space. As even at high speeds the particles follow the exact same laws then it works. It's just us calculators who are defining wrong mathematical values to the particles, so we are not following the principles of Newtonian mechanics. To make it clearer I have to add that I wasn't commenting on the usefulness of relativity, I'm just tired of how people view it as something grand. That's a good conclusion. However if you arrive at such a conclusion that someone is wrong, then you by definition should know what's right, which I doubt you do since all you can say is that others are wrong. All in all I think you misunderstood my point which was that I am tired of people drawing non-physical meanings out of the predicments of quantum mechanics, such as: The world is nondeterministic!... ...As these are only the result of a flawed view of the world, which arises from the fact that we have to divide the continuous world into imaginary parts and interact with them, in order to receive information out of it.

Yes a moving charge is what creates a magnetic field, so a moving charge reacts to a magnetic field. So as every one of the charged molecules/ions in the cell are constantly moving they are constantly generating a magnetic field and responding to the magnetic fields from other cellular molecules and outside magnetic fields (the one from Earth which is quite strong). But still the Earth's magnetic field doesn't pull these molecules to one side of the cell, because there are other factors. Thermal motion and electric forces etc. Otherwise keeping a home magnet near you would be lethal. Also there are molecules that do not carry a net charge, but they still respond to magnetic fields (and form their owns) due to unbalanced electric movement "inside" the molecule. So not all charged/uncharged molecules respond to magnetic fields as well, not even thhose carrying equal charges. I still believe that if there was a strong magnetic particle (molecule) attached to a protein, a rotating outside magnetic field would make it turn wihtout messing up the cell.

Yes a moving charge is what creates a magnetic field, so a moving charge reacts to a magnetic field. So as every one of the charged molecules/ions in the cell are constantly moving they are constantly generating a magnetic field and responding to the magnetic fields from other cellular molecules and outside magnetic fields (the one from Earth which is quite strong). But still the Earth's magnetic field doesn't pull these molecules to one side of the cell, because there are other factors. Thermal motion and electric forces etc. Otherwise keeping a home magnet near you would be lethal. Also there are molecules that do not carry a net charge, but they still respond to magnetic fields (and form their owns) due to unbalanced electric movement "inside" the molecule. So not all charged/uncharged molecules respond to magnetic fields as well, not even thhose carrying equal charges. I still believe that if there was a strong magnetic particle (molecule) attached to a protein, a rotating outside magnetic field would make it turn wihtout messing up the cell.

I don't believe there would be problems about living a couple hundred years, but just try to imagine a person who would have lived 100 thousand, million or billion! years (that's something that noone can quite imagine). Even though there exists quite a number of different things to do, you can for example first study to be a taxi driver, then a mathematician, a footbal star, a doctor, an actor, a priest etc. for someone to live a billion years, I'd say that the person couldn't spend his time like we do now, or else it would just be too way boring to be alive. The least you would have to do is to take breaks from time to time (keep yourself dead for a couple million years and then come back again).

I have to admit that I totally disregarded the fact that even inside a single mitochondrion the ATP synthases face different directions (I only thought that the problem would arise with multiple mitochondria facing different directions). So unless some highly specialized (unrealistic) way of forming site specific magnetic fields was formed, the mitochondrions would have to operate nonoptimally. However there is one thing that I hadn't thought myself. Why exactly do we need mitochondria? Why is it that ATP synthases and other energy metabolism enzymes can't reside on walls of endemic organelles or folds in the palsma membrane. I'm not totally sure of this but I believe the main reason for this is that it's important to have an energy forming unit which can move around the cell to sites of high energy consumption. Also the reasons can be evolutionary. These proteins evolved in the membrane of some species, and instead of them forming later on the membranes of other species they started a symbiotic relationship with the species which already had the needed proteins. The problem of asymmetry could however be solved by modifying the mitochondria or dispersing ATP synthases to other structures in the cell. All in all however it would be very difficult to in any way regulate the synthesis of ATP, not to mention regulate the syntheisi in different parts of the cell. About the only thing we could do is decide the number of ATP synthases in different cells. Further control could only be obtained by making a new inhibitory route inside the cell which would block a number of synthases from working depending on the amount of the inhibitor. However the one thing which I don't understand is why are you constantly referring to charged particles? Using magnetic particles would allow us to rotate the synthase with a magnetic field. The mitochondria to all my knowledge hold no (at least as strong as the added particle) magnetic parts, so it wouldn't react to the field in any way (at least if we disregard the fact that a changing magnetic field induces an electric field, how strong this electric field would become I have no idea of since I have no idea of the intensity of the magnetic field required to turn the synthases but I doubt it would be that large as to harm cellular functions).

There exist a number of unicellular species of protists which can form chloroplasts (or like structures) if there is light available, and lose them once light is no longer available.

I agree its not going to be easy, but a time will come when we need to develop such methods, so instead of just complaining why don't give it a try. I mean basically if we disregard the different organelle and protein content of specialized cells compared to stem cells (something which would probably change over time if we could make specialized cells express their genome the way stem cells do), the only difference between stem and specialized cells is the difference in their chromosome arrangement. This difference in chromosome structure is largely determined by the nucleosome structures associated with DNA. Nucleosomes compose of histidine protein subunits, and the chemical modification of their N -terminal tails sticking out of the nucleosome core is a factor which largely regulates the nucleosome structure. Also associated with chromosome structure are different regulatory elements which block or assist nucleosome formation and a group of structure modifying proteins called non-histidine proteins. Analyzing the stem cell nucleus protein content could give us hints as to what proteins function to organize the nucleosomes. Also analysis of the mRNA content of the stem cell could give us usefull hints of what parts of the genome are under transcription. This in turns gives light on how the nucleosome units are modified at certain areas. Through trial and error we could find ways to return some specialized cells into a state (not necessarily stem cell) where they could under the information content of other tissues turn into cells of that tissue.

What do you think, when will we achieve the technology to keep ourselves alive as long as we have the will and materials to do it? My guess is about after 250-500 years have passed. After all keeping yourself alive is only a matter of raising the level of order inside yourself, whilst introducing disorder to the surroundings. Even now our DNA carries a powerfull machinery which keeps the cell and its contents functional and repairs any mistakes that arise. Problems tend to arise only when the repairing mechanism itself starts to fall apart and suffer from flaws. After the repair mechanisms are no longer functional errors from spontaneous damage start to gradually accumulate. This is happening little by little in our bodies as we get older and older. In the end it leads to a situation where the organisms cells are too damaged to keep the multicellular organism alive as a functioning unit, and it dies. So all it would take to keep a human alive would be to continuously repair the damage on its DNA and other cellular substances. Fundamentally there are a number of ways that could be used to solve this. Building up the whole genome from scratch and introducing this newly built fully functioning genome inside every cell (the genome would probably have to be carried into the cells in smaller pieces and brought together once inside the cell). This aproach would also mean that we would have to get rid of the old damaged genome. Another way would be to monitor the genome and replace only those parts which had suffered too much damage to function at optimal efficiency. Another aproach would be to introduce genome repairing elements which would constantly work in the cells, repairing any arising mistakes. Mechanizing as much of the body would of course help a lot, as mechanized units are easier to repair as biological ones. All these approaches require that we achieve a "complete" understanding on molecular interactions, and the behaviour of groups of molecules, atoms and microscopic units, an arising branch of science known as nanotechnology which regularily hits the headlines, even as till now we do not posses even a small understanding of the subject as we simply have not enough calculation capacity right now. But with the coming of more powerfull computers and intelligence boosting through electronic device-neuron junctions, these obstacles will be "quickly" overcome. Also what is your view on how will achieving "immortality" change the society? I believe that these techniques will only be open for the rich people, or if it becomes common, then we have to introduce some kind of birth control system. Like you can choose whether to live yourself or have a baby. Whatever way you look at it, it's clear that not all of people will gain the benefit of these new techniques (the people of developing countries coming in mind at first), so I think that humans will speciate (because of this and other changes in the genome + machine incorporations) into old humans and new humans. Nevertheless I suppose that eventually the only option will be for a part of humanity to move away from earth and start colonizing space, since running out of living space and resources on Earth will become a real problem. Space stations will probably be built first, then habitats on the Moon, Mars etc. Eventually we will have to set our sight on outer space and exo planets but this will require for methods of transport not available yet. Opinions, anyone?

Instead of wasting time on arguing about the use of stem cells, why don't people try and find methods to reverse the specialization of differentiated cells. That would give us access to stem cells without the need for cloning embryos. What's the big deal. All you have to do is determine the chromosome structure, protein - content and localization of a stem cell. Then you just induce some changes on whatever cells you have at hand and there you go. Its so easy you know.

The human system is built to try to expose of CO2, so transport of CO2 from anywhere except through skin would probably mess a whole lot of different systems (breathing control for example, breathing is mostly controlled by CO2 levels in blood). Though if the CO2 was bound to a protein in CO2 form I'd guess that would be okay. So instead of stomata a better/easier way of introducing CO2 to photosynthesizing cells in animals would be to add a protein in the blood which efficiently binds CO2.

Yeah, I wasn't talking about why plants don't move, I said that even though plants don't move, they are still far better suited for photosynthesis than animals given their greater surface area per unit volume. That means that it wouldn't be possible for an animal to satisfy its energy need through photosynthesis alone.

Actually to all my knowledge there's no problem with using the CO2 produced by respiration in photosynthesis. However the amount is way too small to be the sole source for efficient photosynthesis, taking into account the fact that CO2 tends to diffuse out of the cells further diminishing the supply. All in all I'm not sure whether or not high levels of CO2 would be dangerous for animal cells not accustomed to it. I believe most, or at least some of the CO2 in solution reacts to form HCO3-. I don't know if the cells could stand these rises in acidity unless some sort of balancing measures were introduced.

Even now there exists a variety of different photosynthetic pigments in the natural world, but I don't know one that would fit nicely into human skin. Besides I believe the human melanine (substance in the skin which protects us against high energy radiation) is going to prevent efficient photosynthesis. On the other hand perhaps it would be able to convert melanine or a related compound into functioning as a photosynthetic pigment, though such actions would take much more effort than simple chloroplast injection. Either way the efforts would be in vain, as you couldn't satisfy your energy need with photosynthesis in your current form.

Newtonian mechanics are perfectly applicable in relativistic and quantum worlds. The only problems are that the quantities with which we define the state of matter constantly change as speed increases. This however in no way undermines Newtonian Mechanics - at every instant they work just fine, its just the quantities that have changed. In the microscopic scale the only problem arises from the fact, that with Newtonian mechanics we are defining an arbitrary geometric shape from the continous universe and assigning it with strict quantities. This doesn't work in the microscopic world however as objects are not defined enough to be forced into strict geometric shapes. That is the sole reason why we are forced to use wave models and probability calculations. In other words the geometric object we defined at one point might at another point have dispersed, and its quantities changed at every instant. The wave equations and probability equations are just a mathematical trick through which we handle the fact that the particles we have defined do not actually exist. The exact place and momentum of the electron cannot be defined due to the fact that there is no such particle as the electron. It is just something pulled together to easily define laws of physics, as we humans try to group things in our minds. However Newtonian mechanics would work in the quantum world if we divided space into infinitesimally small points and defined quantities for each one. The only problem is that there is no way to obtain physical data from such points. So the conlusion has to be that the need of probability calculations and matter/wave dualism is just a consequence of the fact that our atomic/wave view of the world is flawed, a conspiracy to allow people preach metaphysical crap. Atoms, Particles and waves are just imaginary objects, something defined from a world which cannot be defined. However in reality the world is really deterministic. Get it?

An enzyme does in no way affect the spontaneity or the balance of a chemical reaction. It just speeds the reaction up (by lowering the activation energy). As noted by the previous poster an enzyme cannot make a nonspontaneous reaction (such as peptide bond formation) occur without expending energy. Peptide bond formation in the cells is catalysed by the rRNA-protein complex known as ribosome. But for the bonds to be formed energy in the form of ATP has to be provided. Right now I can't remember whether the ribosomial enzyme which actually catalyzes the bond formation is a protein or an rRNA. But the important thing to remember here is that if a reaction doesn't occur spontaneously, adding an enzyme will not help one bit. However if a reaction indeed does happen spontaneously, adding an enzyme can speed it up a great deal.

Even though green humans are a funny idea, the change in skin colour would be the only good thing those chloroplasts would do you. Think about it. Plants don't move, plants don't think, and even though they do neither of these actions (which use tremendous amounts of energy), their surface area to volume is immensely larger than that of animals. There just wouldn't be a way an animal could satisfy a substantial amount of its energy need through photosynthesis (even optimized one), given their current surface area. It could work if you were a Bulbasaur with a bush growing from your back. As to how to transfer the choloplasts, such transfers are already possible though microinjection for example. Now to make them work in the animal cells, you would either have to genetically modify the chloroplast genome or the animal genome, to return the genes the chloroplast genome has lost over evolution, now residing in the plant genome. If you chose to incorporate these genes into the animal genome you would probably have to incorporate a deal of other genetic material used in the modification and transport of these chloroplast enzymes. Apoptosis and immunological reactions might be a problem though this could possibly be overcome by modifying the outer membrane of the chloroplast, and changing the sugar content of its proteins.

The ATP synthase enzyme has two parts, a membrane part embedded in the inner mitochondrial membrane and a soluble part which resides inside the mitochondrial matrix. Each of these two parts is composed of multiple subunits, and the soluble part of the enzyme inside the mitochondrial matrix contains the rotating complex which actually catalyzes ATP production. The two parts are linked by a gamma-subunit which allows the soluble part to rotate. Normally this rotation is powered by the movement of protons from the inner mitochondrial membrane into the mitochondrial matrix. The ATP synthase actually catalyzes the formation of ATP from ADP and P even without the presence of the proton gradient, however the gradient is needed to release the formed ATP molecule from the enzyme. This is achieved through the rotation of the complex, powered by the proton gradient. Now then I'm not sure whether a rotation by other means would actually release the bound ATP molecule, but I see no reason why it wouldn't. The Citric Acid Cycle is only important in producing the electron carrier molecules which cause the redox reactions in which the proton gradient is formed between the inner membrane. In the actual synthesis of ATP the cycle is meaningless. Why couldn't I use magnetic particles? Of course I could. And there already exists methods for linking such magnetic particles to different biomolecules. This is a standard technique in gene technology for example. And depending on the subunit and place of the subunit protein to which the magnetic particle was bound, the ATP synthase complex could be made to organize with no problem.

Suppose I attached magnetic particles to the rotating subunits of the ATP synthases. Then I'd set a rotating magnetic field around the subject. I guess it would start its rotation and synthesize ATP, or maybe not... A bigger problem would likely to be how to align the mitochondria, so all the synthases would rotate in the correct direction. Maybe use another field to align them from time to time. Also unless you had spesific magnetic particles inside your body, the rate of ATP synthesis would be kind of uniform.