Adonis Diaries

Posts Tagged ‘engineering

Scientists have been claiming in the last 30 years that sciences were stranger than science-fiction stories.  So far, the interviewers and the respondents did not attempt to clarify what is meant by “strange” before extending answers and comments.  So far, we have no clear idea what is meant by “science”; are we talking of natural sciences (labeled hard sciences) or are we including human and social sciences such as biology, neuroscience, psychology, medicine…

For example, with the launching of space programs in the late 70’s, many editors of science-fictions complained that actual space programs have pictured space trips fictions as redundant.

It appears that what is meant by science is hard science.  Sciences, meaning natural sciences or “hard sciences”, are so far stranger than science-fiction stories.  Why?

First, sciences are not backed up by any validation process by people, not even by advanced technology:  A few people are specialized and involved in sciences, while most common people take the words of scientists for granted for a single day, until they read or hear other alternative “truths or facts”.  Science-fictions are supported by narrative logic and fictitious rationality, made easy to understand by well-written stories.

Second, Scientists claim that sciences are neutral.  I don’t think anyone can get excited by such neutral approach that disturb their state of mind, though scientists are big liars in matter of neutrality. Science-fictions are based on current frustration, disorientation, doubts, fear… And thus, are not neutral:  They extend a release valve to believing in a better future.

Third, Sciences talk about cosmology, nano particles, expansion of the universe, quantum mechanics, relativity theory, chaos theory…Not of any concern to common people.  Science-fictions describe possibilities of living in different societies, customs, highly man-made environment managed and controlled by robots.  Science-fictions extend our horizon and forces us to re-evaluate our values and the meaning of man and life.

Fourth, Sciences are no longer driving technology advances.  Technology is short-circuiting sciences and has reduced sciences to an “after-thought” validation of a technological invention or processes by trying to explaining why the technology actually works.  Technology is interested in explaining how it works:  Just try to comprehend the manuals of how any device function.  Common people do not care why a device works and are ready to experiment and use it, even if safety and health factors were not investigated and tested before the release of a version.  Science-fictions try to describe why and how in layman terms, and the implication of technology in our daily life; its consequences in our near future.

Five, Sciences are boring and insipid for common people, while science-fictions is here to last in our dreams.

Sixth, Sciences are done within clubs of professionals reading “peer-reviewed” articles, while science-fiction authors communicate with many sources of intelligence and audience:  Safety, health, survival are more important in how heroes and protagonists interacts in the story.

Seventh, sciences are not perceived as factors for change; technology and science-fictions are.  Science-fictions are admitted to be literature for change; a literature that catalyze children to growing in radically different worlds from their parents.

Eight, technology gave science-fictions a big boost via video games and new kinds of movies such as “Star War”, “Matrix”, and the 3D versions.  Sciences do not appear to have made an impact on imagination of science-fiction authors.

Science-fictions were originally based on theories of hard sciences, particularly on mechanical inventions…  It is no surprise that transistors and computer technologies were not predicted in science-fictions:  When Galvani experimented on the reactions of muscles in frogs in the 18th century, applying electrical impulses or shock, it was done on live subjects and in a period when all inventions were focused on mechanical devices, manufacturing mass production tools for the “industrial age”, and boosting colonial expansions… For example, all Jules Verne fictions invariably considered the original people as second grade species good for extermination if they retard “colonial development”…

Suppose the question was: “What is stranger: Social sciences or science-fictions?”  I bet that both common people and social scientists will admit that science-fiction is far stranger.  Why?  Everyone of us consider himself expert in psychology and sociology based on personal experiences, even if based on a single experience that hurts deeply.

In any case, what we call science-fictions nowadays refer to predicting social and human transformations as well as organizational and control mechanisms.  Hard science is not exciting and has stopped inspiring science-fiction authors’ imagination.

Bacteria running supercomputers?

Apparently, you should not worry when using future computers that will be run by “smart” bacteria.

Bacteria are different from microbes because their life span is pretty short, they don’t occupy much space, and can develop new faculties to compete for nourishment. That last characteristic of bacteria of being excellent in the competition struggle is worrisome to me:  I have seen its effect among mankind and feel that it would be wiser for me to purchase a traditional and less performing computer.

How smart bacteria can develop to be? 

Laura Grabowski, at the university of Texas-Pan American of Edinburg (USA), is experimenting with how far bacteria can become intelligent.  She placed a colony of bacteria in an environment poor in food.  A hundred generations afterward (mind you that bacteria do not live long) somehow a single bacteria decided to descend to the lower box rich in food.  In an environment of plenty, a new colony of bacteria expanded greatly; with new faculties.

The smarter bacteria can learn to follow computer instructions such as direction to finding food and a weird instruction “Redo what you have done the latest time“.  I think that Robert Pennock of Michigan State University at Lansing (MSU) went overboard when he said: “Bacteria developed memory quicker than mankind.  Following instructions requires a form of intelligence capable of evaluating situations, realizing we had taken the wrong route, and then reconsidering available data” (again, recall that bacteria have short life span, and a million generations of bacteria would not need 100,000 years as mankind).  Ask a member of mankind to recall details of yesterday; he won’t remember much of interest:  the work is boring as usual and he had no desires what-so-ever to do anything, and thus, cannot remember worthwhile details.

For example, Ryo Taniuchi in the university of Tokyo has taught E. coli bacteria to successfully playing “Sudoku” of 9 columns and 9 lines with 81 types of bacteria.  The bacteria were using parallel calculus to filling all the cells simultaneously, a task impossible by man, using simple rules.

The limiting factor is that there is a limit for the quantity of ADN to be inserted in the bacteria genome.

Martyn Amos said: “Take a colony of ants: an individual ant is not useful, but if you get million ants to come together they are capable of very rich and very complex collective behaviors.”

Laura Grabowski stated: “these organisms are in an environment having to face precise obstacles that demand a form of memory to navigate in.  At least a short-term memory must have developed to performing orientation problems.  In general, researchers prefer to endow computer with complex intelligence; I opted for the alternative of reproducing artificial intelligence by developing faculties with simple organisms that had only the faculty of procreation.”

To demonstrate the feasibility of her alternative, Laura Grabowski taught “smarter” bacteria to moving toward light sources.  These bacteria were introduced into the robot Roomba (a vacuum cleaner) and followed an algorithm of instructions guiding bacteria toward lighted sources.

Smart bacteria are called Avidians in reference to the computer Avida of MSU were these organism live and auto-replicate according to computer instructions. “Avidians are wonderful evolving domestic animals” said Ben Kerr of University of Washington at Seattle.

The term “performance” is defined to be the scapegoat to firing employees in private and public institutions.  For the daily workers, performance is made very easy to evaluating: “How many units has the worker churned out?”  For the educated and graduate students (or technocrats), performance is evaluated with a rather long list of indices that the various managers in the hierarchy subjectively judge accordingly.  Primarily in the list are keeping on schedule and obeying the rules and regulations of a corporation or a public institution.  In order to fulfill the “mission” (or the  faked lustrous image of an institution), an educated or semi-professional employee has to come 30 minutes earlier than regulation and leave at least two hours later of regulation:  You have to prove to the corporation that the company is your first family to pay allegiance to and to do various chores free of charge.  Competence or creativity is on the list but secondary in value for hiring.

Why competence is not highly valued and performance of routine jobs is given so much priority?  The school system in the US (primary, secondary, and high school) is structured to satisfying corporate value system.  The school system passes every students who showed up on time, kept on schedule, and was obedient to rules and regulations.  Students who proved to be creative might b e on the honor list; but how many students learn to care being on honor list?  Corporations don’t care about creativity when you are first hired; they give priority to how obedient you tend to be to your master. 

The German scientist and educator Von Humboldt wrote:  “When you produce on command, we may admire your product, but we definitely despise the man.” He resumed ” What you fail to choose by your own volition, what you are forced to learn against your inclinations  will remain stranger and never be identified as a trait of your personality.  When an action or a learning process is done mechanically then, it cannot lead to creativity since you didn’t employ your human force and zeal in it.” 

British economist Adam Smith warned:  “State should intervene to preventing chain production by workers that renders them stupid and ignorant.”  The American social reformer and educator John Dewey (1859-1952) considered as “non liberal and immoral to forming kids for the job market in the perspective of just gain.”

Actually, experts and professionals learn that in order to keeping their jobs they should not indulge in “emotional” or ethical considerations in their reports.  What is of value is the end results; the corporation tells them:  “Show me the range of practical methods to bypassing laws and ethical situations in order to reach a winning contract.”

“Graphene Valley”: Where and when?

In 2004, Andre Geim isolated the matter grapheme (graphene), a component of graphite such as the one used in traditional pencil.

Graphene is 200 times more resistant than steel, 100 times more conducting than silicium (silicon), and 6 folds less heavy than silicium used as semi-conductor in electronic  and computer circuits.

Graphene is transparent and highly malleable; thus future screens could be in any shape and you may fold it to cigarette size and inserted behind your ears, if you wish.

Graphene is a natural element and in abundance, though it currently cost 600 billions to produce a mere square meter.

When the screen is made of graphene then, the entire screen is conducting and you don’t need computer circuit; the power needed is negligible, it is “environmentally clean”, (polluting oxide of titanium and oxide of indium are out of the window), and it can be folded any which way you desire.

South Korean researchers have already introduced a touch screen in that material. Many are planning a location for “Graphene Valley”.

Andre Geim stated: “In general, it takes about 20 years to cross from scientific research to application, and another 10 years to mass producing.  Within only 5 years of my discovery graphene is already used in the industrial stage.”

Physicist Antonio Castro Neto at the University of Boston is optimist that graphene screens will be market within two years.

Not so quick.

We know that electric cars and hybrid cars were applied long time ago but have not been produced and marketed widely, so far. What about the trillion of dollars invested in oil refineries, gas stations, and millions of cars circulating on gas?

You might retort that this is another ball game:  copper was displaced quickly by germanium and then, by silicium; so graphene will displace silicon as quickly when production cost is lowered.

No so quickly.

The chemist Rod Ruoff of University of Texas  said: “I have not met a single employee in the electronic and computer sectors who believe in a total replacement of silicon. Most probably, hybrid products will be the norm.”

The scenario for the event of mass production is as follows:

First, the US secret service agencies and the Pentagon will acquire graphene equipments quickly, if they don’t have it already.

Second, the multinational companies will pronto get these performing computers and communication components.

Third, the rich will pay whatever it cost to satisfying their ego, even if they never touched a computer.

Fourth, the remainders of the powerful nations will equip their intelligence agencies and their military headquarters  with the latest gizmos.

Fifth, after multinationals in the sector regroup then, they will be permitted to monopolize the business for a while.

Sixth, after the cash cow period, of maybe four years, then market competition will be opened to the secondary players.

I guess the common mortals will have to wait another 7 years before a slightly improved hybrid of silicon and graphene screens and circuits are marketed as cellular phones and portable computers.

The valley of Santa Clara will still be on the map for some time.

“We know what we only fabricate” said the physicist Richard Feynman.

What is happening in Boston at MIT? About 1,700 students, divided in 112 teams from around the world, presented their synthetically engineered genetic “bricks”.  From a chassis or frame of a minimal bacteria possessing the only property of reproducing, the students grafted genes (costing about 40 cents) on the frame so that the new synthetic organisms deliver specific functions or properties such as producing a scent, detecting hazardous chemical compounds, emitting fluorescent lights…

A vast living kitchen where these living engineering samples are stored in refrigerated banks as spare parts for later use as Lego constructs. There are currently 5,000 of those “open source’ bio-bricks. Apparently, there are 10,000 artisanal genetic laboratory around the world and this yearly convention is the 6th.  Richard Kitney, director of the center of biological systems in Imperial London College, blurted out in excitedly: “Industries demand and are ready to invest heavily for the industrialization of biology (for example, speculative sources of energy production of bio-carburants, bio-degrading synthetic organisms, detecting harmful organs, decontamination of the environment, and aiding the military in biological warfare).

In 1912, the physician Stephane Leduc published “Synthetic biology”; he believed that forms, colors, textures, and movement of living organisms are the essence of the physico-chemical basis of life.  In 1978, Waclaw Szybalski wrote: “Till now, we were engaged in the descriptive phase of molecular biology.  The real challenge has started with synthetic biology.  We will discover newer elements to add to new modules of existing genomes that have controlling properties.  Thus, new synthetic genomes will acquire close-circuit behaviors and the gamut will be unlimited.”

Craig Venter is the catalyst in these conventions; he is the private pioneer in sequencing human genomes in the 90’s.  Venter fabricated the first synthetic bacteria; he assembled sequences of pig bacteria (an artificial chromosome)  and injected it in a goat bacteria cleared up of its genome; the new synthetic bacteria reproduced.

There are many methods to producing synthetic molecules with auto-organizational properties.  Jack Szostak (Harvard Medical School) stated: “We are very close to transforming molecules into living organisms.”

There are legislations on living organisms but not on synthetic biological products.  So far, constraints on new synthetic molecules are that they should not be able to interact with current natural organisms (genetically incompatible) and also nutritionally confined to rare substances (fluor) and unknown in nature (silica).

Once the Pandora box is wide open, there would be no fundamental theory to remedy to the  newer calamities and the new open hell that mankind created.  In the short-term, mankind will suffer famine because multinational industries in sugar, oil, and chemical products are regrouping to monopolizing special kinds of agricultural products.

What did we know on Climate Change before Copenhagen? 

Note: Article is re-edited           

Before 1992, six nations accounted for over 80% of the total accumulated 6 gases related to environment global temperature increase such as CO2, fluor, and especially methane. These countries are USA (27%), Europe’s major States (23%), China (10%), Russia (9.25%), Germany (5.5%), and Japan (5%).  In 2005, the same countries emit more than 70% of the gases.  They are: China (19.5%), USA (18.5%), The EU (13.5%), Russia (5.25%), India (5%) and Japan 3.5%).

            Only three countries have managed to reduce their CO2 “equivalent emissions” since the Kyoto agreement reference of 1992.  They are: Russia by 40%, Germany and England by almost 20% each.  The major themes in the coming conference are eight:

            First, the long-term objective for the year 2050 is to staying below 2 degrees increase in global temperature. This is not acceptable: it means that the world community has already condemned 30% of animal and vegetable species to go extinct, 30% of sea-shore swamps will disappear, and a qualitative jump in desertification and rate of inundations; potable water will become scarce resource.

For that purpose, the most industrialized States should reduce by 80% the equivalent CO2 emissions.  The overall reduction is to be 50% with the contribution of the developing countries in going green. To that effect, the target of not exceeding 450 particles of CO2 concentration is not acceptable. Currently we have a concentration of 390 particles and the temperature had increased by 0.8 degrees in the last three decades:  We are already witnessing the melting of the Arctic Pole. 

            The target for CO2 should be to drop to at least 350 particles. The main reason is the emission of methane (a gas worse by 20 times the effect of CO2) that the hard frozen ground are emitting and which kept this nasty gas trapped underground before this melting phase.

            Second, the medium term objective is a reduction of CO2 equivalent to 30% in reference to the year 1990.  The actual engagement is 13%.  The US administrations are not ready for even that modest reduction of 13%.

            Third, an engagement to adopting industrial processes with low CO2 emissions.

            Fourth, reducing deforestation by 50% and replanting new trees.  Brazil has already started policies of saving the Amazon forest areas from further plantations.

            Fifth, pumping $3 billions a year into the poorest States to encourage them switching to alternative cleaner energy resources.

            Sixth, pumping additional $ 2 billions a year for innovative green technologies.

            Seventh, allocating $ 10 billions, each year, till 2012 to finance green alternatives.

            Eight, developing an alternative program that will substitute the “Carbon market” due to terminate in 2012.

            According to the Bangkok Post the US President Obama and China Hu Jintao have agreed to lower expectation in Copenhagen. Most probably, the reference for lowering gas emission will be of 2005 instead of 1992, a move that will encourage accepting raising the CO2 concentration beyond the 400 particles. All indicates that the US is going to the Copenhagen conference empty-handed in home legislations.  Many leaders are encouraging President Obama to raise the standard unilaterally as a sign of personal commitment and set the psychology of the US people in motion. Everything might restart from scratch.

            The Kyoto agreement had for purpose to encouraging the heaviest state polluters to invest in the poorer States with less polluting technologies to stabilize the overall concentration of gases.  The idea was to deter the emerging economies from emulating the same industrial processes that the developed countries have previously used and thus, saving future deterioration of the environment.

A tax of 2% on the heaviest industrial polluters was to generate $1.6 billion by 2012.  Nothing was done so far and the US administrations refused to sign the Kyoto agreement on the basis that climatic changes are mostly a myth.

            The hardest hit States are located in Africa (the western and eastern states), Afghanistan, Bangladesh (17% of its land will be submerged).  The next worst hit states are Mexico, Pakistan, Iraq, India, the western states in Latin America, and many States in South East Asia. The actual facts and trends are changing priorities for the worst hit states; for example, Mexico, Argentina, Australia, North of China, and India are witnessing the lowest rain precipitations in decades for two consecutive years.

This exciting long life

I had a tortuous dream, but I managed an association between Einstein’s equation for defining energy and my definition for life. The details and clarifications of my equation were the products of my conscious state, but the concept came in a dream.

Einstein defined the energy of an object as the product of the “mass” of the object by the square of the speed of light C.

My definition of life is the sum of the products of elementary tasks by the speed of executing the task.  Obviously, this equation needs plenty of clarifications before other relevant functions may substitute this to a lousy summation method.

Let us consider that any simple activity is constituted of hundreds of infinitesimal tasks, carried successively or in parallel, in order for an activity to be accomplished.  For example, in line production, every activity is subdivided into smaller tasks with computed standard time to finish an activity.  The idea was to train workers to be skilled withing the standard time for each task and even be paid accordingly to efficiency. (Quality control field falls within this notion)

Mind you, that acquiring skills and talents in any profession demands lots of repetition and investment of time and energy.  Well, every repetition of any task is counted in the equation.  You can imagine how much life has been wasted just to be accredited as a professional or a skilled worker!

If our brain and limbs could master a skill by simply “getting it” from the first trial or exposure, imagine how much life we would have saved for another interesting things.  We would feel that life is stretching so long that it seems ageless.

Repetition of a task include the thousands of times that we copy, paste, reclassify, review, re-dust off our productions and memories.  Can you imagine how much life has been wasted by going back to long past activities?

Dreaming is an activity with thousands of split-second takes to constitute a movie.  Even the recurring dreams, mostly the unwanted ones, are counted.  The second time we experience a “deja-vue” dream is not as bad as the first projection: we tend to sit and watch as one of the audience instead of being part of the movie; we just wait for this bad film to finish since we feel helpless to stop it or even press “Pause”.

Evidently, very few tasks go as fast as light C.  For example, the movements and reactions of limbs are pretty slow compared to light; brain reactions are at best as fast as electrons or 20 thousands km per second.  One of the rare tasks that is as fast as C can be the case when someone says: “I fell in love from the first sight.”  This performance has high value rating in life: It can be repeated a hundred times a day; not necessarily with one hundred different women.

For example, if you are endowed with a vivid imagination and can recapitulate “the moment” in your mind ad infinitum then, you can summarize the best that life can offer and very efficiently.

My position is that it is the first occurence that counts most, but recollecting this miraculous “moment” over and over again beats all other kinds of tasks in whatever criteria system you adopt.

Life equation clearly shows that there are many sorts of activities that ruin quality of life. What is your quality of life when you commute to work?  Repeating so-called automatic reactions in driving a car, a donkey, or a bike for hours a day is definitely cases of worsening the impact and mocking my formula.

For example, how often you regurgitate the left over worries from yesterday when you commute? How often you re-enact the clownish acting drama for the current day difficulties?  How often you ran a red light and ran over a lousy living person?  All these tasks count in the equation and should be eliminated the sooner the better.

Think of algebra and how to cancel out redundant factors so that your life equation looks much simpler and beautiful.  So, how did you decide to commute in order to “save time” in congested metropolis?

One small problem remains to be resolved before we set our mind to changing our life style to maximize life equation and its many constraint equations:  How many tasks and activities can fill a lifetime without being repeated again?  Are we indulging in repetitions simply because we lack the imagination to figure out plenty of activities?  Are traditions the main hurdle for our lack of imagination because it dangerously reduced licit or legitimate activities to be experienced?

How about getting on this wonderful job of revisiting taxonomies of tasks and activities that could excite you (or not) after retirement?  How about you fine tune the many tasks that constitute professional line fishing?

Note: I classified this article under “lucubrations” assuming that not many readers will select this category from among the other most interesting 45 categories in my blog.

Human Genome Project (HGP), a public consortium, started in 1993 with the goal of sequencing and decoding all genes in the ADN. Craig Venter also founded Celera Genomics to compete with HGP headed by Francis Collins; the two institutions managed to complete the job of decoding 21,000 gene combinations faster than expected within a decade due to new and cheaper technologies.  Over $3 billions were invested in this project.

Francis Collins had declared in 2001: “New therapeutic medicines, genetically tailor-made, will soon be introduced in the market to curing diabetes, hypertension, mental disorders, and many other ailments.” Francis Collins predicted that this dream will take effect no longer than 2010.

Well, we are in 2010 and not a single genetically tailor-made medicine was introduced.  Worse, we should not expect any breakthrough for a long time.  What are then the main difficulties and barriers?  It appears that technology is not synonymous with scientific knowledge.  For example, how a genome functions? After this first hurdle is crossed then, what are the effects of the horrendous number of interactions of these 21,000 genes?  There is this musoviscidose attributed to a single gene and yet, crossing from a theoretical knowledge to viable therapeutic treatments has proven to be a real headache.

The entire project didn’t start from any coherent set of hypotheses.  It was assumed that applications will automatically be generated from discovered data.  Many starting hypotheses proved to be wrong.  For example, researchers thought that genes conditioned the synthesis of proteins (essential for the proper functioning of cells); that genes were drowned in useless piles of ADN that failed to be eliminated in the course of evolution; that for each gene corresponded a unique protein that was coded by the intermediary of acid ribonucleic (ARN) serving as model for assembling of proteins.

All these hypotheses turned out to be incorrect.  It appears that genes are not linearly distributed unto the genome; that gene activities are influenced by various factors not explicitly coded in the genome; that the implications of a hereditary gene count little in the disease.  In short, there is this new big “black box” in the arsenal of sciences admitting ignorance.

After the discovery of the molecular structure of the ADN in 1953 by Francis Crick and James Watson, geneticists considered ADN to be the “Book of Life”; to be read as a manual of utilization. This paradigm stated “We are what our genes do to us.”

The scientist Jim Collins (not Francis) said:”We made the error of confounding data collection with the improvement of our knowledge.”  So far, the only general principle extracted from that labor of two decades is: “There is a link between the sequence of genes and the structure of a protein.”  Obviously, many more general principles have to reach consensus among scientists before anything useful can be done in therapeutic treatments.

Neutrinos are elementary particles hypothesized a couple of days to having no mass.  Neutrinos easily cross matters and the atomic core at the speed of light.  Yes, neutrinos are allocated three “flavors” or types:  neutrino-electron, neutrino-muon, and neutrino-tau (guess relating to the kinds of nuclear reactions emitting the neutrinos).  The short story is that a team of scientists announced on Mai 31, 2010 that they observed neutrino-muon oscillating (mutating) into neutrino-tau type.

Why this big fuss? Now that physicists believe that, after 80 years of experimentation, they observed one neutrino flavor mutates into another flavor then, neutrino should have a mass.  Again, why this fuss?  Physicists feel now more confident to explaining how we ended up living in a world of matter instead of anti-matter. The theory of the Big Bang would like us to believe that a universal fight of annihilation “for existence” between these two types of matters ended up with matter as victor (in our world).  So, why this fuss?  Apparently, if neutrinos have masses (infinitesimally small) then they contributed in this universal struggle for matter winning the battle!

Hold on a second.  This is not the end of the wonderful story.  There is a laboratory close to Rome called Gran Sasso, 1,400 meters below ground to shelter its rooms from cosmic rays.  In Geneva, and exactly 732 kilometers from Gran Sasso, there is this monster of nuclear accelerator of particles, 22 kilometers long, used by a European conglomerate CERN.  In CERN, protons were accelerated on a graphite target; the collision produced all kinds of particles at huge quantities.  Among these elemental particles we have neutrinos-muon by the trillions that reached Gran Sasso within 2.3 millisecond.  Of all the neutrinos-muon, a SINGLE neutrino-tau was detected (caught hand in the bag).

So much investment to proving a theory of the Big Bang that may also greatly interest superpower military complexes anxious to mass kill mankind while preserving the materials.   In the meanwhile, millions are dying of hunger, thirst, and common diseases every day for lack of a wretched single dollar to survive.  Just another point of view.

Note:  An Austrian physicist hypothesized the existence of neutrinos in 1930.  Neutrinos were detected 30 years later.  Every second, each square centimeter is bombarded by 65 billion neutrinos from stars and a variety of nuclear reactions.

Fielding a couple scientific questions

Question one: “Do electrons smash in the nucleus of an atom?”

Question two: “Do all our cells contain the same ADN?”

For question one:

Yes, electrons in the lowest energy level can circulate in the nucleus of protons and neutrons. The latest atomic model views electrons, in each energy level assigned to them, as moving along determined spaces (orbitals) and not simple trajectories.  We can only attribute probabilities of an electron occupying specific region in the orbital.

Since the orbital of the lowest energy level is considered to be a sphere that include the nucleus then, there are probabilities for electrons circulating in the nucleus at the fundamental energy level.

I guess your corollary question would be “Can an electron in the first level smash into protons and neutrons?  What would be the consequences and what happens when an electron connect with the nucleus?”

The short answer that I read didn’t field that specific question.

We can always join our brains and conjecture before approaching a theoretical physicist.

For example, knowing that the mass of an electron is much lighter than a proton or a neutron; and knowing that the kinetic energy of an electron is much smaller than a proton or a neutron then, an electron will be ejected to other energy levels depending on the value of momentum of coming into contact (or very close to a contact).

Now, has every electron a “matriculation number” that determines that only such an electron should be assigned such an energy level?  I tend to doubt it.

How another electron is “lured” into filling the vacant space of the ejected electron?

My physics knowledge is outdated and I would love your contributions.

In any case, I have this impression that most of the heat generated could be the results of contacts of electrons in the first level with nucleus.

Question two: “Do all our cells contain the same ADN?”

Mostly yes, with two exceptions.

There are two categories of cells that diverge from this general principle.  The first category is the lymphocytes B and the second is the sexual cells or “gamete”. 

The lymphocyte B is in charge of our immune system: it has the ADN constantly re-organized (re-combined) to generate infinite kinds of antibodies adapted to defending our organism.

In the case of the sexual cell, the fecundated egg is created from the contact of two sexual cells (male and female) contributing each 23 unique pairs of chromosomes.  The pair of chromosomes are assembled in a chaotic mix of genes contained in the cells that produce sexual cells.  The newly formed egg cell divides (mitosis) into two identical cells with same ADN.

The replication mechanism induces into rare errors of substitutions, insertions, or deletions of pairs of chromosomes.

The frequency of these errors is about once for every 10 million replications of our total 3.2 billion pairs of chromosomes in mankind molecule.  These erroneous replications result in either an order to destroying the cell or mutating into genetic ailments such as hemophilia.

Mostly, these imperfect replications do not generally alter the proper functioning process of the cell or the correct expression of a gene.

External sources may also alter replications or cell mutation such as ultra violet rays (UV), radioactive rays, viruses, and chemical substances.

The external sources for deficient replications are called “mutagen agents” and they may breakdown pairs of chromosomes.  If internal natural mechanisms fail to repair the broken pair of chromosomes then, a chain reaction of invading chaotic proliferation of defective cells takes hold.  It is hypothesized that the mutation of sexual cells creates new genes and thus, new species.

Thus, with the exception of these two categories of cells, all our body cells (neuron, skin, bone…) have the same ADN.

The answers were extracted from the French magazine “Science et vie” number 1111.




December 2021

Blog Stats

  • 1,485,407 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by

Join 816 other followers

%d bloggers like this: