Lorentz,
I do agree with most of your comments on this thread but, in some
respects, I think you miss the most salient points.
Most people would take it as read that a perpetual motion machine is
impossible. Those who believe otherwise would probably accept that
perfect mirrors and vacuum chambers were exceedingly uncommon on the
prebiotic earth and, moreover, that even if such devices were capable
of harvesting thermal energy, they would have been unable to copy
themselves with variation through the generations; they could not have
initiated evolution.
In short, trying to understand the origin of life is not the same as
trying to devise a perpetual motion machine. Had Jarek's proposal
really been correct, I suggest mirrors and vacuum tubes might still be
detectable as inherited components in today's organisms.
The essential point, so it seems to me, about the origin of life is to
indentify a primordial source of free energy that could have been used
by *organic chemistry* to trigger evolution.
Orgel listed prebiotic energy sources and pointed out that thermal
energy was largest such source. Because it was the largest energy
source, I have argued that thermal free energy could have been
harvested by chemical oscillations induced by daily or yearly
oscillations in the earth's surface temperature. These, of course,
would be caused by the earth's spin or orbit.
These thermally induced chemical oscillations, I have argued, would
have been subject to variation and selection due to the randomizing
effects of high energy events, such as UV exposure. They would,
therefore, have been subject to evolution and their evolution would
have led to something resembling biochemical metabolism and to
protocells that would have contained that metabolism. My proposal is
detailed on
http://www.sexandphilosophy.co.uk
and follow the prebiotic evolution link.
In sum, I do not think we need to invoke breaches in the laws of
thermodynamics in order to understand the origin of life. Neither do I
think we need to propose the existence of entities which no longer
exist, at least as representative components, in extant living
systems.
Sincerely
John Hewitt
On Sep 6, 10:04=A0pm, Lorentz
yahoo.com> wrote:> that with the interpretation of thermodynamic laws. The two mirrors
> and piston in the experiment are merely components of the heat engine.
> The flow of heat is moving from one heat reservoir (spatial volume
> initially between the two) to another heat reservoir (the spatial
> volume outside the two mirrors.
> =A0 =A0 Interpreting it this way requires really close attention to the
> formal statements of thermodynamic law. Loose derivative statements
> can't substitute for formal analysis. The meaning of each separate
> word has to be analyzed closely.
> =A0 =A0 =A0It is really easy for someone to to make the mistake of thinki=
> he figured out how to beat the laws of thermodynamics. Wouldn't it be
> great if one of the people on this forum really does figure it out!
> However, validation of the achievement requires a really accurate
> understanding of the formal theory. I really hope I am teaching
> someone somewhere science when I critique posts like this.
> =A0 =A0 =A0A really good journal where problems like this are analyzed al=
