What is energy released from ATP?

[Nerdberg]

I have read all the 'high-flying' posts on What is energy, exactly? thread. It has been interesting and educating. However, the question seems to remain elusive and unanswered.

 

If you don't mind, I would like to bring this dilemma more down to earth.

 

Years ago when feeling low on energy, I found all kinds of snake-oil peddlers pushing various energy boosters with caffeine mostly the main ingredient.

 

Was wondering from where the energy really was coming from and found the role of mitochondria.

 

Then Scientific American 2009 issue on page 86, on the left side, had an illustration showing how breaking the third phosphate bond of ATP releases a blob of energy.

 

That was the AHAA moment for me.

 

It soon fizzled to ahaa after finding the "What is energy, exactly?" thread on this forum.

 

No better explanation for the blob of energy than "releasing the energy to power cellular activities".

 

The following link gave the best explanation of ATP so far. Without defining the released energy better than referring to orbital energies of electrons and to quantum theory.

 

 

Finally the following link provided something more concrete to work with.

 

http://hypertextbook...mberIqbal.shtml

 

Bray, Dennis. Cell Movements. New York: Garland, 1992: 6.

 

"What is this power requirement in terms of ATP molecules, the principle currency of energy in the cell? Hydrolysis of one gram mole of ATP releases about 470 kJ of useful energy;

 

hydrolysis of a single ATP molecule, about 10^-19 J."

 

When dividing this by Plank's constant h = 6.626x10^-34Js we get a frequency of

 

f=1.50*10^14Hz.

 

Link below puts it in near infrared region. Certainly helps keep cells warm.

 

But how does it also help muscle cells do mechanical work? That probably belongs more likely to biochemistry than this forum.

 

Any member familiar with quantum theory might want to pitch in for a view from that direction. Thank you!

 

http://www.lbl.gov/M...ec/EMSpec2.html

 

 

 

 

 

[imatfaal]

Nerdberg

 

The energy release by ATP in the body is not in the form of electromagnetic radiation. ATP is used in endothermic chemical reactions (reactions which take in heat rather than produce it) - ie it provides the energy for many cellular reactions and biosynthesis that otherwise could not take place. Elsewhere in the body the energy in glucose is used to recreate the energy rich ATP ready for when it is needed.

[Nerdberg]

Nerdberg

 

The energy release by ATP in the body is not in the form of electromagnetic radiation. ATP is used in endothermic chemical reactions (reactions which take in heat rather than produce it) - ie it provides the energy for many cellular reactions and biosynthesis that otherwise could not take place. Elsewhere in the body the energy in glucose is used to recreate the energy rich ATP ready for when it is needed.

 

Thanks for your input.

 

 

If it is not e-m radiation what is it then exactly?

 

I have tried to find out what powers the muscle fibers to contract.

 

From biochemistry the following book reference seemed to provide the answer.

 

 

*Lehninger Principles of Biochemistry *

 

 

Page 504 is dealing in great detail with phosphate bonds and goes to effect on muscle cells.

 

However, it does not explain the exact nature of the chemical energy any better than anybody else as red lined below.

 

"/In the contractile system of skeletal muscle cells, myosin and actine are specialized//*to transduce the chemical energy of ATP into reaction ........*//"/

 

Only reasonable conclusion seems to be that *nobody knows**what this (expletive deleted) energy is exactly.*

 

The heat generated by mitochondria seem to be only 25% to 30%. The rest is something else.

 

The following research report from 2004 deals with mitochondria and e-m radiation.

 

This may lead to better understanding of our energy dilemma in the future.

 

 

*Journal of Theoretical Biology 230 (2004) 261-270*

 

 

P*ropagation of electromagnetic radiation in mitochondria?*

 

 

"*Ultra-weak chemiluminescence appears as a general*

 

*feature of all living organisms. It appears as a permanent*

 

*weak light emission throughout the ultra-violet (UV),*

 

*visible, and near-infrared (NIR) parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, which can be only detected by highly sensitive photo-multiplier-tubes...."*

[Ronald Hyde]

From what I can find, a Phosphate ion is joined to ADP to make ATP, so the extra energy is potential energy in the added bond. Which make ATP unstable to spontaneous

hydrolysis, which explains why it is made and used so quickly, it isn't really stored by the cells. When energy is used by cells, in an enzyme for instance, it is transfered to an electron or pair of electrons associated with a metal ion in a Porphyrin ring in the enzyme.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porphyrin

 

Chlorophyll also uses a Porphyrin ring to absorb the energy of two photons of sunlight, which is used to make ATP. But the exact mechanisms for the various enzymes to 'do their jobs' in the cells, I don't know about. How it's transferred to and from the ADP >> ATP process, and used to make changes in the cell.

[Nerdberg]

From what I can find, a Phosphate ion is joined to ADP to make ATP, so the extra energy is potential energy in the added bond. Which make ATP unstable to spontaneous

hydrolysis, which explains why it is made and used so quickly, it isn't really stored by the cells. When energy is used by cells, in an enzyme for instance, it is transfered to an electron or pair of electrons associated with a metal ion in a Porphyrin ring in the enzyme.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porphyrin

 

Chlorophyll also uses a Porphyrin ring to absorb the energy of two photons of sunlight, which is used to make ATP. But the exact mechanisms for the various enzymes to 'do their jobs' in the cells, I don't know about. How it's transferred to and from the ADP >> ATP process, and used to make changes in the cell.

 

 

Ronald Hyde

 

Thanks for your reply.

For not being a biochemist, the Wikipedia link is well over my head.

It just seems to confirm that energy enables chemical reactions.

 

Back to basics:

I have listened again very carefully to this Khan's video.

 

 

His exact words:

 

" energy is generated by electrons going to lower energy state"

 

From this link we got value for the generated energy.

 

http://hypertextbook...mberIqbal.shtml

 

" hydrolysis of a single ATP molecule, about 10-19 J."

 

Trying to find out from where they got this value I ran to dead end.

The book is not available for browsing on the net.

Maybe you or somebody else has better resources available to find this information.

 

The question also is:

Is the sum of electron energies from orbital changes in question equal to this?

[Ronald Hyde]

Nerdberg

The energy release by ATP in the body is not in the form of electromagnetic radiation. ATP is used in endothermic chemical reactions (reactions which take in heat rather than produce it) - ie it provides the energy for many cellular reactions and biosynthesis that otherwise could not take place. Elsewhere in the body the energy in glucose is used to recreate the energy rich ATP ready for when it is needed.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this reply because the very next post by Nerdberg implies ( more like yells in your ear ) exactly how enzymes work.

I'm not faulting you in any way because this must be some kind of 'received wisdom' from a book which has been believed and passed down as wisdom when

in fact it seems to fit the category of common fallacy.

 

I'm going to make testable predictions so this 'hypotheses' can be fully vetted. I'm including Chlorophyll and Heme as enzymes because they use the

metal ion/Porphyrin ring. I'm using Chlorophyll as an example because its workings are well known.

 

It's pretty obvious that Chlorophyll has a scattering resonance in the Green part of our visual spectrum. However it does not use that in the plant's

metabolism. Sunlight 'peaks' at the 1/2 ev energy. Chlorophyll is 'tuned' by the Magnesium ion to absorb two photons with that energy ( clever plant )

and transfer that energy to one or two electrons in the Porphyrin ring. So Chlorophyll has a strong absorbtion resonance at 1/2 ev. So the excited ring

should flouresce at around 1/2 or 1 ev. But if you bring a Phosphate ion and an ADP molecule together in just the right way to absorb those

photons or that photon they may absorb those photons and and the Phosphate ion will be joined to the ADP and water released.

 

Testable predictions.

 

Chlorophyll exposed to 1/2 ev photons will flouresce at or near that energy.

 

Dry ATP placed in water will flouresce.

 

Heme works at around 40 mev which corresponds to body temperature.

 

End of story.

[John Cuthber]

"It's pretty obvious that Chlorophyll has a scattering resonance in the Green part of our visual spectrum."

Not really.

The green colour of plants is due to scattering by cellulose etc. The chlorophyll absorbs a lot of the red light but it has little or no interaction with the green light.

 

Chlorophyll has nothing to do with the way the body uses ATP.

We are not green.

[swansont]

Sunlight 'peaks' at the 1/2 ev energy.

Not our sun. 1/2 eV would be about 2.5 microns, well into the infrared. Peak sunlight is at about 2 eV.

 

h = 4.14e-15 eV-s

c = 3e8 m/s

 

hc/E = wavelength

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_Spectrum.png

[Ronald Hyde]

Not our sun. 1/2 eV would be about 2.5 microns, well into the infrared. Peak sunlight is at about 2 eV.

h = 4.14e-15 eV-s

c = 3e8 m/s

hc/E = wavelength

http://en.wikipedia....ar_Spectrum.png

But that's at the top of the atmosphere, there are no green plants there, at sea level and in water is where they live. But I really do

appreciated that link, it provides a lot of good information.

 

"It's pretty obvious that Chlorophyll has a scattering resonance in the Green part of our visual spectrum."

Not really.

The green colour of plants is due to scattering by cellulose etc. The chlorophyll absorbs a lot of the red light but it has little or no interaction with the green light.

 

Chlorophyll has nothing to do with the way the body uses ATP.

We are not green.

Things are way more subtle than they seem to be on the surface. All the cellulose I have around me is white, almost the definition of white.

Suppose the scattering of light off a water droplet, unrelated you may think, but I give it as an example anyway. The light, each individual photon,

can be scattered in one of two ways, incoherently or coherently. If it scatters incoherently it interacts with ONE electron and changes the state of

that one electron and is re-emitted. With visible light this is a rare occurance, water is nominally transparent. Most scattering off of water droplets

is coherent, the photon scatters off ALL the electrons in the droplet. My questions to you are these, does the green color come from coherent or

incoherent scattering? Is there some coherent equivalent for absorption in the case of the red? I want to know those answers, they are relevant.

 

Every organism that uses ATP, from the smallest bacterium to the largest whale, uses it for the same 'purpose', as an intermediate for energy transfer.

And everyone that I know of, my ignorance may be showing here, uses it in conjunction with a metal ion/porphyrin ring. There are two processes here,

transfer energy to ATP, get energy from ATP to do some kind of work. And it has to be done rather quickly because ATP is not very stable.

 

I'm sure that the information that I used here has been around for years, decades maybe. How can people not see how things are connected, and all

work together in this? If I said I'm flabbergasted it would be an understatement.

[swansont]

But that's at the top of the atmosphere, there are no green plants there, at sea level and in water is where they live. But I really do

appreciated that link, it provides a lot of good information.

The sun's still yellow for us at the surface; the plot also shows the radiation at the surface and it has the same basic shape, with the attenuation and losses from some absorption bands. The peak, near 550 nm, is about 10x the irradiance of ~2500 nm.

[John Cuthber]

" All the cellulose I have around me is white, almost the definition of white. "

 

Obviously, yes, cellulose is white and, equally obviously, nobody said it wasn't.

 

The fact remains that chlorophyll doesn't do anything with green light.

 

So , when you said "It's pretty obvious that Chlorophyll has a scattering resonance in the Green part of our visual spectrum."

you were talking bollocks.

 

You now have two choices

You can admit that you were talking nonsense, or you can try to pretend that you were not.

 

I rather doubt that you will get away with bullshitting here so I think you should accept that your ideas are moonshine.

 

 

"There are two processes here,

transfer energy to ATP, get energy from ATP to do some kind of work. And it has to be done rather quickly because ATP is not very stable."

Here's how the actual evidence (rather than talk of magic and rainbows) shows that it's done.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxidative_phosphorylation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyruvate_kinase

[Ronald Hyde]

The sun's still yellow for us at the surface; the plot also shows the radiation at the surface and it has the same basic shape, with the attenuation and losses from some absorption bands. The peak, near 550 nm, is about 10x the irradiance of ~2500 nm.

The plants are not using our measuring apparatus. They're using Chlorophyll. It's what the Chlorophyll 'sees' that the plant uses. More of the subtlety

that comes from Quantum Mechanics. The result of an experiment is not independent of the method of measurement.

[John Cuthber]

"It's what the Chlorophyll 'sees' that the plant uses."

Specifically, it 'sees' red light. That's why it's green.

The green light you see reflected from plants is the light they are not using.

They don't use green light.

[swansont]

The plants are not using our measuring apparatus. They're using Chlorophyll. It's what the Chlorophyll 'sees' that the plant uses. More of the subtlety

that comes from Quantum Mechanics. The result of an experiment is not independent of the method of measurement.

0.5 eV is 0.5 eV, regardless of how you measure it. There's no wiggle room here, certainly not a factor of 4 in wavelength or energy. Your numbers are wrong.

[Ronald Hyde]

0.5 eV is 0.5 eV, regardless of how you measure it. There's no wiggle room here, certainly not a factor of 4 in wavelength or energy. Your numbers are wrong.

I'm going to reply to this that the .5 ev has been tested in the laboratory.

 

I see I'm going to have to do a complete workup on this before the light will dawn in anyone's eyes.

 

This statement is an erroneous conclusion by someone:

 

The energy release by ATP in the body is not in the form of electromagnetic radiation. ATP is used in endothermic chemical reactions (reactions which take in heat rather than produce it) - ie it provides the energy for many cellular reactions and biosynthesis that otherwise could not take place. Elsewhere in the body the energy in glucose is used to recreate the energy rich ATP ready for when it is needed.

 

Does he believe it works by some kind of magic? Nerdfeld in his second post provided direct physical evidence, all that is needed to draw the correct conclusions.

 

You're all forgetting about the importance of Entropy in the scheme of things.

 

Read my signature, it tells you who I think is the first and last authority on what is physical law.

 

" All the cellulose I have around me is white, almost the definition of white. "

 

Obviously, yes, cellulose is white and, equally obviously, nobody said it wasn't.

 

The fact remains that chlorophyll doesn't do anything with green light.

 

So , when you said "It's pretty obvious that Chlorophyll has a scattering resonance in the Green part of our visual spectrum."

you were talking bollocks.

 

You now have two choices

You can admit that you were talking nonsense, or you can try to pretend that you were not.

 

I rather doubt that you will get away with bullshitting here so I think you should accept that your ideas are moonshine.

 

 

"There are two processes here,

transfer energy to ATP, get energy from ATP to do some kind of work. And it has to be done rather quickly because ATP is not very stable."

Here's how the actual evidence (rather than talk of magic and rainbows) shows that it's done.

http://en.wikipedia....phosphorylation

http://en.wikipedia....Pyruvate_kinase

I can see that I am wrong on the making of ATP, I completly forgot about the Proton gradient mechanism, and was not aware of the other.

I knew about the Proton gradient mechanism, I should have remembered it.

 

But on the using of it, I still think I am correct and Nerdberg's second post leads to the correct interpretation. But if I happen to be wrong

I will admit that too.

[John Cuthber]

Well, I guess that's progress, now all you need to do is remember that chemical reactions are reversible and do the research ( a few minutes with wiki) to see that biology uses the same pathways (in reverse) to use ATP that it uses to make it.

 

Then you will realise that this "The energy release by ATP in the body is not in the form of electromagnetic radiation. ATP is used in endothermic chemical reactions (reactions which take in heat rather than produce it) - ie it provides the energy for many cellular reactions and biosynthesis that otherwise could not take place. Elsewhere in the body the energy in glucose is used to recreate the energy rich ATP ready for when it is needed. "

 

is right.

[swansont]

I'm going to reply to this that the .5 ev has been tested in the laboratory.

Then give a citation for the discovery that the sunlight's peak is at 0.5 eV.

[Ronald Hyde]

Then give a citation for the discovery that the sunlight's peak is at 0.5 eV.

I'm going to accede to the notion that the Chlorophyll accepts a 2 ev photon, but I did find that the work of the process is done at .5 ev,

and the work was pumping charge against the Proton gradient, which the plant uses to make ATP. The plant doesn't 'care' that it's an

inefficient mechanism, it can get plenty of photons, acquiring CO^2 molecules is the limiting factor in the process.

 

It was a long time ago that I learned about these processes, Photosynthesis, and Mitochondrial processes, in two really excellent SciAm

articles, and some reading since. I just forgot some of it, takes time to recall stuff from that long ago.

 

I regard Nerdberg's question as very important, because these processes occur in almost, if not all, living things and are fundamental

to life and the well being of all living things, including ourselves. And from imatafaals post, I intuit that the second part of the

processes involving ATP, how it is used in Kinase enzymes, is not properly understood. Thank you for posting that imatafaal, otherwise

I would not have seen that. So I do not regard this as a trivial question 'pop quiz' sort of thing. It needs the right answer.

 

Well, I guess that's progress, now all you need to do is remember that chemical reactions are reversible and do the research ( a few minutes with wiki) to see that biology uses the same pathways (in reverse) to use ATP that it uses to make it.

Then you will realise that this "The energy release by ATP in the body is not in the form of electromagnetic radiation. ATP is used in endothermic chemical reactions (reactions which take in heat rather than produce it) - ie it provides the energy for many cellular reactions and biosynthesis that otherwise could not take place. Elsewhere in the body the energy in glucose is used to recreate the energy rich ATP ready for when it is needed. "

 

is right.

I'm not going to accede that that is right. It's the very statement which caused me to see that the Kinase part of the processes was misunderstood, it together with

Nerdberg's second post. Does the original author of that statement suppose that some kind of magic 'hocus pocus' is involved? How do you detect a 'hokey' theory, I

learned that a long time ago, they have no working mechanism. The author proposes no working mechanism while rejecting summarily a possible one. As far as I know

all the Kinase enzymes use a metal ion/porphyrin ring, which to my knowledge again, uses a 'photonic' mechanism. Do you start to see my point? It's crystal clear to me

what must be involved here.

 

You're all forgetting Entropy, living systems have ways of maintaining the flow of Entropy just as they do everything else needed.

And things are more subtle than any of you, and possibly myself think they are. For instance there are more kinds of plants than just green plants.

[John Cuthber]

" they have no working mechanism. "

Yes they do.

Here's a small part of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mechanism_of_Pyruvate_Carboxylase,_5-15-2010,_sswilson7.png

 

 

Please stop talking nonsense.

I already asked you to actually do some research and I'm asking you again.

 

In the meantime, since "I'm not going to accede that that is right. It's the very statement which caused me to see that the Kinase part of the processes was misunderstood," is a total departure from anything like mainstream science you ought to only refer to it in posts in the speculations forum.

Please don't clutter up the other fora with this moonshine.

[Ronald Hyde]

" they have no working mechanism. "

Yes they do.

Here's a small part of it.

http://en.wikipedia....,_sswilson7.png

 

 

Please stop talking nonsense.

I already asked you to actually do some research and I'm asking you again.

 

In the meantime, since "I'm not going to accede that that is right. It's the very statement which caused me to see that the Kinase part of the processes was misunderstood," is a total departure from anything like mainstream science you ought to only refer to it in posts in the speculations forum.

Please don't clutter up the other fora with this moonshine.

That link is exactly what should have been posted earlier in response to Nerdberg's second question. Doing so would have saved a lot of problems. Now I have

'something to draw from'. I know what to look for to figure out whether there are photons involved, it all depends on how the enzymes fit into the scheme. So

there is another energy intermediate involved, that puts a new light on things, so to speak. I do not 'talk nonsense', even if I don't know all the facts or don't

remember everything. Every time you actually post useful information, as opposed to making verbal assaults, things are made more clear. I still have to check

your tetrachromat reference ( on another topic ) but it looks very interesting. You don't seem to have solved my 'white moon' riddle or have attempted to, yet

another topic.

[John Cuthber]

"You don't seem to have solved my 'white moon' riddle "

It only seems that way to you.

 

Why do you keep making strongly worded blanket statements that turn out to be nonsense?

 

 

("This statement is an erroneous conclusion by someone:

The energy release by ATP in the body is not in the form of electromagnetic radiation. ATP is used in endothermic chemical reactions (reactions which take in heat rather than produce it) - ie it provides the energy for many cellular reactions and biosynthesis that otherwise could not take place. Elsewhere in the body the energy in glucose is used to recreate the energy rich ATP ready for when it is needed. " would be an example)

 

Would it not be better to start of by accepting that you don't know a lot and ask, rather than make false statements that make you look silly?

[Ronald Hyde]

"You don't seem to have solved my 'white moon' riddle "

It only seems that way to you.

Would it not be better to start of by accepting that you don't know a lot and ask, rather than make false statements that make you look silly?

I would be glad to do that sir if you would also do that. The thought never seems to flit past the window of your mind that there is something

that you do not know, that there may be whole fields of study that you are not aware of. It just so happens that now the moon and sun appear

in the sky together, and you may be able to walk outside and observe that the moon is while. Anyone reading this may be able to make that

observation and report the results here. They can check my veracity against yours. I have noticed this fact nearly all my life, and you seem to

have never seen it! We are not to engage in name-calling debates, maybe you think that only applies to me and not you, so I will not call you

any names, but I assure you that people on this forum are perfectly capable of judging your character for themselves.

[John Cuthber]

"The thought never seems to flit past the window of your mind that there is something

that you do not know, that there may be whole fields of study that you are not aware of."

Once again, it seems that way to you, but not me. I know there are plenty of things I don't know. But that doesn't stop me pointing out that

People are not green and, since they use ATP there's no link between being green and ATP.

Chlorophyll doesn't do anything much with green light (though it does absorb red light quite strongly.

There are well documented mechanisms for the synthesis and use of ATP in the cells.

 

It doesn't stop me pointing out that you were totally wrong about them.

"but I assure you that people on this forum are perfectly capable of judging your character for themselves"

 

"We are not to engage in name-calling debates"

How fortunate then, that I didn't call you any names.

 

 

 

If you want to get back to talking about why the moon changes apparent colour then perhaps you should do so in the original thread.

It's the one where you made silly comments about black body radiation because you simply didn't understand it and where the last entry was from one of the mods telling you to stop using personal insults because you described someone's rebuttal of your ideas are "grunting".

 

Here it is

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/69003-the-second-black-body-problem/page__st__20

 

 

 

"but I assure you that people on this forum are perfectly capable of judging your character for themselves"

That goes both ways.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Stick to the topic, please.

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Please note that criticizing someone's idea is not a personal attack.