3 ms·

This is what the grandparent question always skips over. "Why not alternatives to organic life?" Underestimates the fact that, as near as we can tell, buildin

by ethbro 9y ago

This is what the grandparent question always skips over. "Why not alternatives to organic life?" Underestimates the fact that, as near as we can tell, building life from organic molecules is easier (and substantially so). Given that life seems to be a relatively rare event sequence, and that organic life is the easiest form we've been able to figure out from chemistry (ne physics)... betting on another kind is a long shot. Granted, maybe we've missed something obvious. Maybe our understanding is critically flawed. But from everything we know right now, one can't just handwave and say "Well, many kinds of life are possible."

dogma1138 9y ago
Indeed, currently there is no replacement for organic chemistry for life because it seems that we can't find another combination that would be as flexible and stable as carbon. Silicon can replace carbon in a few scenarios but it isn't likely enough for any plausible mechanism that would support life to be based on silicon alone. This is why likely all life is carbon based, some of the other elements like phosphors vs arsenic have more wiggle room but there is simply no "glue" other than carbon and this is simply due to physics not lack of imagination or knowledge.
- pmoriarty 9y ago
  Has there been any thought given to the possibility of life at the subatomic level?
  - dogma1138 9y ago
    Yes not possible not enough complexity or stability for that matter and the energy levels required are well explosive the smaller you go the more energy is needed since you essentially go form gravity (macro) to electroweak (molecular and atomic) to the strong nuclear force (subatomic) and there is a pretty big increase in magnitude of the forces that govern interactions between each phase. Heck even within the unified electroweak force there is a huge range e.g. burning coal releases he energy in the stored covalent carbon bonds which are tied by electromagnetism part of the electroweak force but if you start breaking protons a part from neutrons which is the weak force you get a nuclear bomb. Life needs bonds that are cheap to create, cheap to break and ones that don’t explode once you do break them.

by ethbro 9y ago

dogma1138 9y ago

Indeed, currently there is no replacement for organic chemistry for life because it seems that we can't find another combination that would be as flexible and stable as carbon. Silicon can replace carbon in a few scenarios but it isn't likely enough for any plausible mechanism that would support life to be based on silicon alone. This is why likely all life is carbon based, some of the other elements like phosphors vs arsenic have more wiggle room but there is simply no "glue" other than carbon and this is simply due to physics not lack of imagination or knowledge.

pmoriarty 9y ago
Has there been any thought given to the possibility of life at the subatomic level?
- dogma1138 9y ago
  Yes not possible not enough complexity or stability for that matter and the energy levels required are well explosive the smaller you go the more energy is needed since you essentially go form gravity (macro) to electroweak (molecular and atomic) to the strong nuclear force (subatomic) and there is a pretty big increase in magnitude of the forces that govern interactions between each phase. Heck even within the unified electroweak force there is a huge range e.g. burning coal releases he energy in the stored covalent carbon bonds which are tied by electromagnetism part of the electroweak force but if you start breaking protons a part from neutrons which is the weak force you get a nuclear bomb. Life needs bonds that are cheap to create, cheap to break and ones that don’t explode once you do break them.