Plasma Comes Alive 267
j_hirny writes "So, it seems that the widely acclaimed theory of how life begun, during hundreds of millions of years is, at least, not the only one which is being researched. As New Scientist report, a physicist managed to create life-alike beings made of plasma. They can replicate, grow and duplicate. They don't have amino-acids or DNA strains, of course, yet they may reveal something new about life's beginnings."
overused (Score:3, Funny)
Re:overused (Score:2)
Of course, that could be going to an extreme...
Re:overused (Score:4, Funny)
Season 5 (Score:3, Redundant)
Kent: We're just about to get our first pictures from inside the spacecraft with "average-naut" Homer Simpson, and we'd like to -- aah!
[Camera shows a close-up of an ant floating in front of the three astronauts]
Everyone: Aah!
Kent: Ladies and gentlemen, er, we've just lost the picture, but, uh, what we've seen speaks for itself. The Corvair spacecraft has been taken over -- "conquered", if you w
Re:Season 5 (Score:2)
So... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:So... (Score:2)
Plasma Comes Alive... (Score:5, Funny)
Can this be done with other substances? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Can this be done with other substances? (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, it is. In fact, it's already being done, but with jism, not plasm.
s/funny/fun/ (Score:2)
It's a fact (Score:2, Funny)
Neat (Score:5, Insightful)
Plasma cells are an interesting idea, but I doubt it's time to rip up the old textbooks yet. The 'nucleus' was only a collection of gas atoms. It kind of sounds like the researchers had to jump through hoops to get these 'cells' to grow or divide. Still, it might give us some new insights.
Re:Neat (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Neat (Score:2)
More like a lava lamp (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Neat (Score:2)
I mean this is exactly the idea that Alien's was exploiting: silicate based life form instead of carbon (for those who don't know sili
Re:Neat (Score:3, Interesting)
Then perhaps we should think carefully about whether we should use a definition of life that admits such phenomena. Aristotle's definition of "man" [google.com] needed to be revised when a counterexample was pointed out.
Plasma Aliens (Score:5, Interesting)
This is interesting in the light of speculation about life-forms living on the surface of suns. (As described, for example, in David Brin's [davidbrin.com] Sundiver.)
Considering that a the surface of a sun itself consists of plasma, it's not improbable that spheres like in the experiment get formed there all the time. The question is whether there is any way those spheres could attain a more complex form of internal organisation, or if they remain stuck at that basic level.
Re:Plasma Aliens (Score:2)
A very good/exciting read. I really recommend this book!
Cheers,
Costyn.
Re:Plasma Aliens (Score:3, Interesting)
I was going to bring up the Starchild Trilogy... (Score:2)
As it turns out... (Score:2)
There is a very thin, very hot wrapper of plasma around a relatively cool main body, but if you read any science textbook they'll tell you that the inside of the Sun is hotter - and then blithely skip over the obvious conundrum that sunspots, holes into the Sun, are cooler than their surrounds. There are stacks more electromagnetic effects than there are supposed to be, and in fact our own Sun acts like a bloody great anode [electricuniverse.de].
The Da
Oops! (Score:2)
Not exactly... well, to be honest: the opposite (Score:2)
They are indeed holes into the Sun [nasa.gov], but "only" a few thousand km deep. The patch of Sun underneath the sunspot and the layer of turbulence below it is hotter than the surrounds... but it still begs the question about the Sun in general being cooler under the surface than on top.
Re:Plasma Aliens (Score:2)
Re:Plasma Aliens (Score:2)
These guys may be on to something (Score:5, Funny)
Re:These guys may be on to something (Score:5, Funny)
I'll bet that your lamp isn't the only thing looking at you funny...
Re:These guys may be on to something (Score:2)
Ob: (Score:4, Funny)
Well, potentially life-like, anyway. Intriguing.
Overrated in a way (Score:5, Insightful)
Similar things happen with particles in water. If you go to any water treatment plant and look at the flocculation tanks you'll see tons (literally) of particles colliding each other, forming new particles. They have natural organic matter and other crud absorbed to their surfaces, and if coniditions are right, they can break apart (too much shear).
It's interesting still, in the sense that anything that self assembles usually minimizes the total energy of a system in a 'neat' way, but I wouldn't rewrite the theory on how life begin, because of it.
Re:Overrated in a way (Score:4, Insightful)
I propose "5. The ability to wear a propellor-beanie."
That should sort the wheat from the chaff!
Underrated too (Score:5, Insightful)
Before true life can occur, there needs, I think, to be a process, a method, a life cycle, where something like a plasma ball, a soap bubble, or a fatty lipid ball, can be produced and propagated. You need to be able to, in the absence of real life, create an environment that encourages, protects, and shields the life-activity from what happens outside the life activity.
So plasma balls that can cleanly separate inside reactions from outside reactions is important, all the more so if they are self assembling from nothing; given enough time and random variables it's likely that one or two of them will form with something *interesting* trapped inside, something that will further enhance the operation of the plasma ball, and over time that may "evolve" into something a lot like life.
But first you need the plasma balls to trap the "interesting" bits first.
Did you read my post? (Score:2)
Re:Did you read my post? (Score:2)
Not disagreeing with you, but trying to explain to those who don't know why it might be more important than not. If nothing else, we have discovered another self organizing principle; gather enough of them together, and there may be the possibility of life.
Re:Overrated in a way (Score:2)
Re:Overrated in a way (Score:2)
The problem grows unboun
Not! (Score:3, Interesting)
Reproduction is simply a continuance of that pattern. Think about it:
1) loud noise == cat runs to preserve itself.
2) War == baby boomer generation.
ad nasueum. What we have is a curiousity of bare physics, nothing more.
Re:Not! (Score:4, Funny)
Yes, war is hell.
Re:Not! (Score:2, Insightful)
Bacteria will take no better attempts to survive than a forest fire. One is considered alive the other is not. How do you tell which one by your definition?
On the other hand, an electric current (a pattern of moving electrons if you will) through a coil will fiercely attempt its continuance when confronted by a destructive obstacle - you will get a nice spark if you break the circuit. Again, we don't consider electr
Re:Not! (Score:2)
After decades of treating infections with antibiotics, we now have bacteria that are extremely resistant (and some completely immune) to the more common medications.
After centuries of fighting fires by dumping water on them, most fires can still be put out with water (certain chemical fires being the only exception).
=Smidge=
Re:Not! (Score:2)
More information... (Score:4, Insightful)
Whether they were doing these things spontaneously (or in response to only environmental stimulii) would make a huge difference in how big this is.
Re:More information... (Score:2)
A bit of wordplay here (Score:5, Insightful)
Finally, they could communicate information by emitting electromagnetic energy, making the atoms within other spheres vibrate at a particular frequency. The spheres are not the only self-organising systems to meet all of these requirements. But they are the first gaseous "cells".
Is a form of eletronic harmonic resonance communication? Is breaking apart in two and merging together reproduction? Given that water has surface tension (boundry layer), can communicate (ooh it vibrates), and reproduce (really vague definition here), water's alive by this vague definition.
Sanduloviciu may have found something interesting, maybe he didn't, but the wordplay and generalizations don't cut it.
-B
Re:A bit of wordplay here (Score:2)
What's happening here is essentially the same thing, it's just in a way we've not seen before.
Re:A bit of wordplay here (Score:2, Interesting)
the high temperature needed to form doesn't seem like a major issue since at the very least volcanos and geysers could provide such an environment.
The plasma bubbles are interesting, but they don't seem to have even a wild guess about how they could have led to m
Mr. Spock's commentary on plasma balls. (Score:2)
Re:Mr. Spock's commentary on plasma balls. (Score:2)
Re:Mr. Spock's commentary on plasma balls. (Score:3, Informative)
Besides, in the song "Star Trekkin'" by The Firm, you hear Spock's voice saying "It's life Jim, but not as we know it, not as we know it, not as we know it, it's life Jim, but not as we know it, not as we know it, Captain."
Mathematician's rule of the thumb: (Score:5, Funny)
min(1-p,exp(1/(1-p))).
Some people even throw an integration over the spelling errors in the publication into this formula. (Seiberg's famous bad spelling trace integral.)
My Polymer is Alive! (Score:4, Insightful)
MY GOD, IT'S ALIVE!
(Yes, this is a joke)
Physics itself produces some amazing phenomenom. While it might be cutesy that some plasma is splitting and vibrating synchronously (everything vibrates, sigh. Lasers vibrate synchronously), it is not 'Alive'.
someone please tell me... (Score:2)
Re:someone please tell me... (Score:2)
Re:someone please tell me... (Score:2)
'duplicate' is if I put it on a photocopier.
There's not much difference, but it's philosophical.
Re:someone please tell me... (Score:2)
Re:someone please tell me... (Score:2)
In order to verify that this is real science, other scientists will have to duplicate (re-do) the experiment and see that it works out the same.
alive? (Score:5, Funny)
Spider Robinson == J. H. (Particular) Christ! (Score:3, Informative)
wow (Score:2)
What's the title you put in front of your name to designate deity status?
Ball Lightning (Score:5, Interesting)
More interesting references.
http://www.amasci.com/tesla/ballignt
http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/tesla/ballgtn.
Scientists... (Score:2)
IGOR throws the switch.
MAN in LAB COAT: Its alive...ALIIIIIIIVE!!!!!!!!
He's created POLITICIANS !!! (Score:4, Funny)
Mandatory Science Fiction Nerd reference (Score:2)
Kron ownz0rs.
Life on gas giants (Score:2)
Would be damn interesting if living organisms of this sort were to be found on Jupiter, Saturn or even Titan, would be trying to communicate with them on a level which they would understand.
fire! huh huh huh (Score:2)
Is it alive?
Membranes & life (Score:2)
Re:Life "out there" (Score:2)
Do'Ha'
Re:Life "out there" (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Reality TV (Score:2)
Re:Gotta Love /. (Score:2)
Re:No (Score:5, Interesting)
What, like ignoring the intellectual faculties given you by the Creator in favour of slavish devotion to some ancient collection of fairy tales?
No offence, but experiments with plasma aren't anything like as primitive as some of the things my Christian friends believe, such as the two creation myths in Genesis (although they never seem to have noticed that there are two, they just run with the cute serpent story).
Just my $0.02. You may now inform me that I am damned.
Re:No (Score:2)
damnit, that never sounds quite right from an atheist =/
Re:No (Score:2)
Do you honestly think you are the first person in the history of the world to notice the two creation accounts in Genesis?
Do you think that all the great Christian thinkers like Irreanus, Aquinas, Luther, Calivn, etc. didn't know there were two creation accounts in Genesis?
Do you think they just looked at it, and said, Oh, my, they disagree. We'l
Re:No (Score:2)
Of course not. I don't see how you could possibly draw such an inference from what I said. Still, for the record:
I am aware of this because it was pointed out to me at some time, either in a book or during my studies in Comparative Religion at university. Like so much I know, I didn't think of it first. (I did wonder, when I became aware of it, why 18 years of Catholic upbringing had failed to draw my attention to it.)
Humble apologies for using some backgrou
Re:No (Score:2)
Maybe it was because of the Catholic upbringing that you didn't notice it before. It's not like the creation part is often discussed in sermons, and I doubt that all Christians have actually read the bible (I may be wrong in both, of course, as I have no first hand experience). I, a wretched atheist/agnostic, noticed two different versions of the creation myth the first time I actually read th
Re:No (Score:2)
In Genesis chapter 1, the plants are created on the third day, and man and woman on the sixth day. In Genesis chapter 2, Adam is created, after that the plants, and after that Eve. Still, executive summaries never do fully capture the sense of the whole report.
And yes, not only am I aware of the peculiarities of Catholicism, I also raised the question in a CompRel tutorial once as to why a certain phrase of Hindu scripture, predating the time of
Correction, and apologies to Dave Allen (Score:2)
Dave Allen is, of course, Irish. My bad :-(
Re:No (Score:2)
Re:No (Score:2)
Re:No (Score:2)
The capitalisation of "God" and the mention of Satan hinted that we were at least talking about Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. My point is, I think, valid for all three.
I am also happy to accept that similar criticisms could be levelled against just about any religion, as they all involve some degree of acceptance of the absurd. So Christians shouldn't feel that I'm picking on them; I was citing my friends by way of example, but if the original post came from somebody of a different faith, then I'll s
Mod Parant Up (Score:2)
Re:Big Deal (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Big Deal (Score:2)
Re:And the difference... (Score:2)
Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
This is about the same as blowing into a straw and watching bubbles come out of your soft drink and saying you've created life because the bubbles grow, shrink, split into two, and emit carbon dioxide energy when they bubble up to the top of the liquid.
Re:Bullshit (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, that makes a *lot* of sense (Score:2)
The idea is that you need some kind of self replicating self forming cell structure before you can have DNA; something to protect whatever gets trapped and absorbed inside.
Without plasma cells, you can't contemplate plasma life because the cell protects, shields, and encourages whatever happens inside from whatever is happening outside.
Yes, yes you are. (Score:2, Interesting)
This orchestration of life is almost certainly bullshit. Even if a life-form could evolve from his bubbles, it would not share many of the features of life on earth. These things are pretty much miniature ball lightning.
However, many of the experiments into the origin of life are quite reasonable. Scientists have a pretty good idea of the environment about the time that life arose (at least, the time it
Re:Yes, yes you are. (Score:2, Funny)
I agree with most of what you say, however there is no evidence for the above statement.
Re:Yes, yes you are. (Score:2)
He said that God would be consistent with such a development of life, not that God indeed spurred such a development of life.
Re:Yes, yes you are. (Score:2)
development of life this way can still be consistent with a God that created the universe
Everything can be consistent with 'a God that created the universe'. The notion (of a God that created the universe) is unfalsifiable, hence meaningless from a scientific point of view.
JP
Re: Yes, yes you are. (Score:2)
> Not meaningless, but certainly unscientific.
For all practical purposes meaningless as well: a "theory" that is compatible with everything has absolutely no explanatory power at all. To the extent that it's offered as an explanation of something, it's meaningless.
Re:I'm gonna get crap for this, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
And the Universe is hardly random. It is, in fact, governed by strict principles of operation, those of which we currently understand and can manipulate we know as "laws of physics". Those principles not only permit the existence of life but may actively encourage life (as we know it) to develop. Whether you believe in God (or don't), understand that life developed as a direct result of the way in which our Universe functions, not in spite of it. Perhaps God designed the Universe: in that case he is responsible for life on Earth. Perhaps not. That question is best left to theologians. Science is only attempting to determine how the mechanics of the physical world apply to how life came about on this little planet, and how that life changed over time.
Re:I'm gonna get crap for this, but... (Score:2)
One thing I've noticed is that people who bandy the word "proof" around often have little understanding of science or scientific method. The irony is that those who want absolute PROOF of that which conflicts with their most-cherished beliefs generally have no proof of their own to back up those beliefs. No reputable scientist would ever claim to know, at this stage, how life arose on Ea
Re:I'm gonna get crap for this, but... (Score:2)
Re: I'm gonna get crap for this, but... (Score:2)
His claims are in
Here's some more crap on your shoe... (Score:2, Interesting)
Anyway, on to something on a slight side note. Here's a great rant by esteemed author Ben Bova. [benbova.net] He gives a good argument on why teaching creationism is a load of bull, and that all the agguments against evolution and for creationism are ultimately flawed. Very enlightening.
Re:Richard Simmons (Score:2)