Is it possible light= energy/life

[wade.daniel.w]

Consider this, do you think it's possible the force creating life is inside of light? I know how it sounds but when you consider that light is an actual thing of matter, as (einstein believed) and also that the original life was created with both water and light from the sun, maybe some "light matter" becomes somehow connected with the water and life is created within, forming mold or whatever (plants), the only thing that could live soley off of water and light(evolution), and as we can see eventually creating... us. do you think this is within the range of plausablity. Afterall there's nothing else explaining why life starts to exist. What else could make a lifeform (the first ever) from seemingly nothing?

Edited April 9, 2009 by wade.daniel.w

[iNow]

Actually, light is made of photons, which are massless, and matter (by definition) has mass. So, no, it's not plausible.

 

Since it's an interesting question, though, the right answer is chemistry. You're mistaken to assume that "there's nothing else explaining why life starts to exist."

 

 

I'll share with you my standard set of useful videos on this, and I hope you will watch all of them in their entirety.

 

 

98OTsYfTt-c

 

v8nYTJf62sE

 

-h9XntsSEro

 

 

 

And if you really want to learn more, check this one out:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-690865967686494800&ei=MX3dScbyFYGyqAKM8cTpBg&q=growing+up+in+the+universe+episode+3

[wade.daniel.w]

Sweet thanks. I started looking at this one

"http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-690865967686494800&ei=MX3dScbyFYGyqAKM8cTpBg&q=growing+up+in+the+universe+episode+3" looks right on the money, i'm gonna try to download these and watch them on my other cpu (no sound on this on). Saves a lot of research time.

[mooeypoo]

Consider this, do you think it's possible the force creating life is inside of light? I know how it sounds but when you consider that light is an actual thing of matter, as (einstein believed) and also that the original life was created with both water and light from the sun, maybe some "light matter" becomes somehow connected with the water and life is created within, forming mold or whatever (plants), the only thing that could live soley off of water and light(evolution), and as we can see eventually creating... us. do you think this is within the range of plausablity. Afterall there's nothing else explaining why life starts to exist. What else could make a lifeform (the first ever) from seemingly nothing?

You have a lot of flawed assumptions here (Einstein did not believe light is a 'thing of matter', light is 'thing of energy', if anything), and evolution has nothing to do with living off water and light, specifically if the life is inside the light.. so.. this entire assumption is very messy.

 

On the other hand, as iNow said, there is some potential in this assumption - but I see it from a different angle - information. You could, theoretically, deliver information within light (or rather, more generally, an electromagnetic wave). That isn't biological life, and it isn't really "living" inside the light, but it can travel within the light wave.

 

Think of a stream of information of AI program delivered from one place to another. That isn't living inside the light, but it's being delivered in it, and if we create an AI that is humanlike enough to be indistinguishable from human consciousness, we can discuss how life is delivered in a light wave.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Light isn't made of matter, though, so there's not much biology to discuss there.

[wade.daniel.w]

The video didn't really tell me anything I didn't already know, I guess you guys can't fully grasp my concept. I'm gonna go to a different forum where I don't have to deal with this. and if light isn't matter then why would it be affected by gravity (black hole)

I'm outa here deuschbags

-btw I WILL NOT BE READING ANY FURTHER POST FROM HERE, Replying will be pointless

[iNow]

I'm outa here deuschbags

-btw I WILL NOT BE READING ANY FURTHER POST FROM HERE, Replying will be pointless

This approach is one of cowardice, and should know that before you leave. Running away won't help you learn, it will only allow you to reinforce your preconceived and faulty notions.

 

You are welcome here like everyone else, but you have to understand that you can't come to a science forum without expecting your assertions to be challenged, your mistakes corrected, and your claims to require evidence and citations to support them.

 

Further, at a science forum, you must be willing to change your mind... To accept that you were wrong about something, and adjust your worldview accordingly. I fear that you're not yet mature enough to do this (with your consistent name calling and other fallacies), but I definitely think it's well within your capacity to try and get better.

 

 

Or, you can call me a douche bag and run away. That's an option, too, I suppose.

[jimmydasaint]

Anyway... I thought that matter had a wave-particle duality about them which means that one way of looking at a plant or animal is to look at trillions of waves choosing to stay associated with each other through bonds etc...In my view, waves carry energy so can we see each other as just energy?

[ydoaPs]

You have a lot of flawed assumptions here (Einstein did not believe light is a 'thing of matter', light is 'thing of energy', if anything), and evolution has nothing to do with living off water and light, specifically if the life is inside the light.. so.. this entire assumption is very messy.

 

On the other hand, as iNow said, there is some potential in this assumption - but I see it from a different angle - information. You could, theoretically, deliver information within light (or rather, more generally, an electromagnetic wave). That isn't biological life, and it isn't really "living" inside the light, but it can travel within the light wave.

 

Think of a stream of information of AI program delivered from one place to another. That isn't living inside the light, but it's being delivered in it, and if we create an AI that is humanlike enough to be indistinguishable from human consciousness, we can discuss how life is delivered in a light wave.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Light isn't made of matter, though, so there's not much biology to discuss there.

 

But matter is just photons tied in a knot! Maybe Farsight could explain it better.

[ParanoiA]

Good vids. Thanks for posting, iNow. Really liked the first and third one.

[cameron marical]

really? i liked them all, but the middle one the most.

[Phi for All]

The video didn't really tell me anything I didn't already know, I guess you guys can't fully grasp my concept. I'm gonna go to a different forum where I don't have to deal with this. and if light isn't matter then why would it be affected by gravity (black hole)

I'm outa here deuschbags

-btw I WILL NOT BE READING ANY FURTHER POST FROM HERE, Replying will be pointless

 

Don't push so deeply.

 

[Kyrisch]

Sweet thanks. I started looking at this one

"http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-690865967686494800&ei=MX3dScbyFYGyqAKM8cTpBg&q=growing+up+in+the+universe+episode+3" looks right on the money, i'm gonna try to download these and watch them on my other cpu (no sound on this on). Saves a lot of research time.

 

The video didn't really tell me anything I didn't already know, I guess you guys can't fully grasp my concept. I'm gonna go to a different forum where I don't have to deal with this. and if light isn't matter then why would it be affected by gravity (black hole)

I'm outa here deuschbags

-btw I WILL NOT BE READING ANY FURTHER POST FROM HERE, Replying will be pointless

 

Two posts apart! Does this guy have multiple personality disorder? He responded quite well at first... It's almost as if the youtube videos got him angry, not the users here.

[MM6]

The video didn't really tell me anything I didn't already know, I guess you guys can't fully grasp my concept. I'm gonna go to a different forum where I don't have to deal with this. and if light isn't matter then why would it be affected by gravity (black hole)

I'm outa here deuschbags

-btw I WILL NOT BE READING ANY FURTHER POST FROM HERE, Replying will be pointless

 

HAHAHA LOL that really made me laugh! Now I can go to bed, finally!

 

Before I do. In case you ever sneak back and read this thread (you will):

 

Yes light (energy) and matter are interchangeable. But you need massive amounts of energy to create matter from pure energy.

 

That's what Einsteins equation E=mc^2 is telling you [where E is energy, m is mass, and c is the speed of light]. Square the speed of light (3.0 x 10^8 m/s) and you'll notice that a huge amount of energy is needed to become even a tiny spec of matter. A beam of sunlight does not have the energy to make even a single atom let alone a molecule or a cell.

 

To your second point about light bending around black holes, stars, planets, etc., any mass. Yes that is true. It's true because of the curvature of space-time. Gravity does not pull on the light--that's the Newtonian way of thinking about gravitation. Think of the light as traveling through the curvature of space-time induced by the black hole.

 

We are not all "deuschbags". Most of us are not even German. Be well, douche bag.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Consider this, do you think it's possible the force creating life is inside of light? I know how it sounds but when you consider that light is an actual thing of matter, as (einstein believed) and also that the original life was created with both water and light from the sun, maybe some "light matter" becomes somehow connected with the water and life is created within, forming mold or whatever (plants), the only thing that could live soley off of water and light(evolution), and as we can see eventually creating... us. do you think this is within the range of plausablity. Afterall there's nothing else explaining why life starts to exist. What else could make a lifeform (the first ever) from seemingly nothing?

 

If you're not convinced by my explanation or anyone else's, be a real scientist and go test your hypothesis. As absurd as your notion is it is a testable hypothesis! Get yourself a microscope and set it up outside on a sunny day. You can watch that thing for a lifetime and see if any cells spring into existence. We'll read about it in Nature.

 

(I can't believe I'm still thinking about this crazy op)

Edited April 18, 2009 by MM6
Consecutive posts merged.

[kitkat]

HAHAHA LOL that really made me laugh! Now I can go to bed, finally!

 

Before I do. In case you ever sneak back and read this thread (you will):

 

Yes light (energy) and matter are interchangeable. But you need massive amounts of energy to create matter from pure energy.

 

That's what Einsteins equation E=mc^2 is telling you [where E is energy, m is mass, and c is the speed of light]. Square the speed of light (3.0 x 10^8 m/s) and you'll notice that a huge amount of energy is needed to become even a tiny spec of matter. A beam of sunlight does not have the energy to make even a single atom let alone a molecule or a cell.

 

To your second point about light bending around black holes, stars, planets, etc., any mass. Yes that is true. It's true because of the curvature of space-time. Gravity does not pull on the light--that's the Newtonian way of thinking about gravitation. Think of the light as traveling through the curvature of space-time induced by the black hole.

 

We are not all "deuschbags". Most of us are not even German. Be well, douche bag.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

 

If you're not convinced by my explanation or anyone else's, be a real scientist and go test your hypothesis. As absurd as your notion is it is a testable hypothesis! Get yourself a microscope and set it up outside on a sunny day. You can watch that thing for a lifetime and see if any cells spring into existence. We'll read about it in Nature.

 

(I can't believe I'm still thinking about this crazy op)

 

 

I think what he meant to say is without photosyntheses, the larger multi-cellular could not evolve.

[` melody.]

I think what he meant to say is without photosyntheses, the larger multi-cellular could not evolve.

 

Well light is the needed for photosynthesis by plants, which are in turn needed for animals and other higher-order organisms. So I guess in that sense light is the initial energy source for almost all communities!

[Stefan-CoA]

I'm no physicist, nor even a "proper" scientist just yet, so all I can do is speculate.

 

But photosynthetic life wasn't the first to have evolved. They built upon mechanisms "discovered" by methanogens, sulphur oxidisers, extremophiles etc (I hope I'm getting my facts right). So, I'm thinking that if Earth were covered in a cloud that would prevent any form of light from entering, you'd still have these little guys going about their business. Since DNA isn't perfectly replicating, you'd always get mutations happening, the by-products would lead to (after a long while I'm sure) an increase in certain environmental compounds (Be it oxygen, Hydrogen, water or whatnot). So after a while, they'd have to adapt. I'm fairly certain that without light, higher life would still have evolved, except it'd be considerably different to what we're used to.

 

Although bacteria could possibly have started using the IR or UV spectrum, which is almost light (as we know it).

 

Come to think of it, maybe instead of "light" one could say "radiation"?

[Widdekind]

Actually, light is made of photons, which are massless, and matter (by definition) has mass. So, no, it's not plausible.

 

Since it's an interesting question, though, the right answer is chemistry. You're mistaken to assume that "there's nothing else explaining why life starts to exist."

 

 

Chemistry involves the transfer of charge (electrons, protons), and is, therefore, an Electro-Magnetic (EM) process, fundamentally related to photons. However, the EM forces, which coax charges, between atoms & molecules, are mediated by 'virtual' photons, bound to the matter from which they 'emanate' (even as the EM fields, associated with matter, are bound to the same). Thus, the "Life magick" in bio-chemistry, depends upon 'virtual photons', of 'virtual light' (which transfer energy & momentum, between atoms & molecules, accounting for the forces between them). Perhaps, living chemical systems 'emanate' modified virtual photons, when interacting, with other living chemical systems (thereby, generating un-conventional EM force fields -- "Life forces", perhaps giving guidance, to bio-chemical compounds, 'directing traffic', in a non-random 'match-maker' way, to 'organize' the bio-chemical reactions more efficiently) ???

Edited April 10, 2011 by Widdekind

[lemur]

I would have like to have seen this thread evolve into a discussion of the role of chlorophyl in photosynthesis and the chemical process of transforming light into chemical potential. I don't know if the process of spontaneous fuel-generation from sunlight could be considered a general form of life-process, but it seems like a good candidate to me. Of course life as well as non-living processes can consume fuel (potential energy) but does nature have other processes besides living organisms that transform radiant or kinetic energy into potential/fuel?

[Widdekind]

I would have like to have seen this thread evolve into a discussion of the role of chlorophyl in photosynthesis and the chemical process of transforming light into chemical potential. I don't know if the process of spontaneous fuel-generation from sunlight could be considered a general form of life-process, but it seems like a good candidate to me. Of course life as well as non-living processes can consume fuel (potential energy) but does nature have other processes besides living organisms that transform radiant or kinetic energy into potential/fuel?

 

If some surface absorbs photons, and becomes warm, it could be used for -- and, so, could be construed as -- the heat reservoir, of a heat engine. Thus, natural non-living systems could be said to create fuel, yes?

[apricimo]

Consider this, do you think it's possible the force creating life is inside of light? I know how it sounds but when you consider that light is an actual thing of matter, as (einstein believed) and also that the original life was created with both water and light from the sun, maybe some "light matter" becomes somehow connected with the water and life is created within, forming mold or whatever (plants), the only thing that could live soley off of water and light(evolution), and as we can see eventually creating... us. do you think this is within the range of plausablity. Afterall there's nothing else explaining why life starts to exist. What else could make a lifeform (the first ever) from seemingly nothing?

 

 

All these types of "theories" start with something that has already evolved. For example, let's say that no theories on how life started exist as of right now, that is, no creationism or evolution or religion to cloud your thoughts. I come into the picture and say that life begins with water because water is needed for everything and continue on with this logic and maybe get two or three more "fundamental" essentials of life. But water is not fundamental, I used water because I see it and I am used to it but who says that water always "was" and whose to say what came from what. Best you can do is put the pieces together as you live your life and if they fit and everything you learned in life makes sense then maybe you are on the right path, but often times people are born into thinking a certain way.

 

I come from a religious family and it took some time before I stopped feeling guilty that I didn't believe in God and creationism. Quite simply it doesn't make sense does it? Those that appose my view will say something along the lines of that all of this didn't come from nothing and that something had to create it, but I ask then how was that original something created. Typical response is that that something was always there and always will be. This is a dangerous circular logic game they play and because it is "self consistent" it seems valid. It is not, it is simply a subset of all truth whatever that truth may be I don't know but if you I do will let you know. Consider group theory where you have a special tupe of a group that is closed and all the elements that are added and multiplied generates another element that is already present in the group (D4h group in chemistry for example). Such a group is completely valid and often times useful but there are other groups which are more general that encapsulate the former group and others that encapsulate the former former and so on and so forth. The point is that knowledge should never be a perfect element where the end is also the start but rather something that is constantly evolving. An infinitely expanding sphere perhaps.

 

 

Anyway, dimensional analysis is your first objective and I saw someone reply with no you cannot because the units come out weird. Yes dimensional analysis is always your first objective.

Edited April 13, 2011 by apricimo

[Widdekind]

I offer, that the "quantum core" of Life Phenomena, is the ability, of certain 'special' quantum systems, under certain 'special' quantum conditions, to erect a 'cybernetic self incentives' structure. As in all aspects of life (e.g., business), "incentives matter". The ability to "reward friends", "punish foes", and ignore non-participants, is central, to any self-regulating, life-like (quantum) system. In a word, "lead, follow, or get out of the way" behavior, enticed by cybernetic self incentive structures, could explain life-like phenomena (?).

[lemur]

I offer, that the "quantum core" of Life Phenomena, is the ability, of certain 'special' quantum systems, under certain 'special' quantum conditions, to erect a 'cybernetic self incentives' structure. As in all aspects of life (e.g., business), "incentives matter". The ability to "reward friends", "punish foes", and ignore non-participants, is central, to any self-regulating, life-like (quantum) system. In a word, "lead, follow, or get out of the way" behavior, enticed by cybernetic self incentive structures, could explain life-like phenomena (?).

Life basically leads and only follows to the extent that it replicates itself. It only gets out of the way to preserve itself long enough to begin leading again. I was reading about photosynthesis recently, specifically chlorophyl, and how it converts CO2 and H2O into some form of simple sugar (sorry, can't remember which now - you can google it). Anyway, the point is that it involves this giant enzyme molecule (whose name I also forget), which made me wonder how/why such an enzyme evolved and/or if there were more primitive enzymes that also used energy from sunlight or otherwise to construct energy-storing molecules. This seems to be the basis for life - although somehow organisms also had to evolve that were able to consume the sugars and convert them into growth and movement. It would be interesting to figure out how spontaneous chemical reactions developed into processes that systematically store energy and consume stored energy. Do any non-living processes do this?

[Widdekind]

Bio-tars, the organic gunk that bio-chemists commonly concoct from basic pre-biotic molecular ingredients (e.g., ammonia, methane), are as chemically complex as life, and ponderously pursue all possible bio-chemical reactions, generating all possible bio-chemical compounds -- albeit randomly so -- through time (MacFadden. Quantum Evolution, p.~80-100). Thus, they probably create a copy of some complicated poly-peptide (protein) now and then. But, Life Systems are self-reinforcing, self-replicating, 'closed' chemical systems, that can perpetuate their bio-chemical pathways, through time. Whereas, bio-tars may manufacture all the same chemicals, but not all at the same time ("hours or days apart"), not all in the same place ("one side of the flask or the other"), and not all together ("some here & now, some then & there"). Thus, the whole "social system" of mutually co-interacting bio-molecules never arises ("engine sputtering & back-firing").

 

Cosmic Perspective -- Lee Smolin's Life of the Cosmos observes, that the molecular chemistry, of spiral galactic disks, is dynamic, and of quasi-life-like chemical complexity, existing in seven separate phases, through which material is ceaseless cycling. Thus, there is a hierarchy of (pre-)bio-chemical complexity, all evidencing the cosmic rule of 'complexity from prior complexity':

 

Big Bang (H, He)

first stars (metals)

first (spiral) galaxies (complicated disk chemistry)

first planets (ultra-complicated bio-tar pre-bio-chemistries, on rocky HZ exo-planets)

pre-Life, organic (carbon-based) bio-genesis (??)

cf. Law of Bio-genesis, "Life only emerges from pre-existing Life". Yet, Evolution provides a pathway, for more complicated Life, to emerge from simpler precursor Lifeforms. And so, "running that backwards in time", one can construe a "chain of emerging Being", stretching back through billions of years, to the first ultra-simple, pre-cellular (?) self-replicating bio-chemical systems. Evolution explains bio-genesis, based on known "off-the-shelf" bio-chemical principles, with no need, of any other agent or actor, except the preceding steps, which began with the Big Bang.

[Widdekind]

According to Bray's book Wetware, all earth life relies on Thermal Diffusion to deliver messenger molecules around the cell. It's sloppy-but-simple, rude-but-robust, and has worked well for 5 billion years. There is no need, nor even room, for 'fancy photonics'.

[tar]

apricimo,

 

The "constantly evolving" of your post, and the "information" of Mooeypoo's can be tied together nicely by the idea of "memory". That is to say that the patterns of the universe, arriving at a particular place and time, through the various "photonic" means, DO SOMETHING, to that particular place and time, and that particular place and time, in turn, releases photons (after some very small but most likely measureable "delay") that then travel outward from that particular place and time to "inform" the rest of the universe of the event.

 

Thus in a very real sense, the universe is not ever finished doing what it does, and any particular place and time "remembers" to various extents and durations, that which has "happened" to it.

 

The ideas posted above, of fuel generation, and heat being held in a rock, and photosynthesis all have this "memory" idea.

 

The "reflexes" exhibited by early life forms, as they move toward light or fuel sources, may not be a completely different idea from "reflection".

 

Consider the surface of a lake, with an exact analog copy of the scene above the shoreline, reflected below the shoreline. Then the folds of the brain, and our ability to hold a "model" of the universe in our memory.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited May 30, 2011 by tar