LIFE, ENTROPY AND BEYOND

Standing at the pinnacle of the evolution of life on earth, we humans have long been asking many questions regarding our origin, our uniqueness in the universe and the reason for our being.  Because of the high intellect that has evolved as a distinguishing characteristic of our species, we constantly search for answers to these probing questions and explore the universe for the presence of life elsewhere.

Philosophers and scientists have been intrigued by these notions throughout history.  Many versions of religious philosophy have been formulated in attempt to place our existence in perspective.  Orientation is a driving force in humans as it is in most lower animal species and any meaningful orientation for man will require answers to the basic questions of our place and purpose in the universe.  While religious philosophy has attempted to provide a reason for our being, it is almost always based on pure, unquestioned, faith in a supreme creator of the universe and everything in it.  While this has been sufficient for many, it bypasses the human capacity for rational analysis and thoughtful reasoning in finding answers to difficult questions.  Thus, while religion has provided a temporary crutch in seeking orientation, scientific investigation is attempting to either bolster current religious theory and/or suggest an alternate, more comprehensive, orientation based on further observation, analysis and interpretation of nature.

While a student at Northwestern University in the late 1950’s, I came across a little book titled “What Is Life” written in 1944 by the physicist Erwin Schrodinger.  I eagerly checked this out of the university library and read it as one of the choices for my Tutorial Reading course.  I don’t know if this was the first attempt by someone to explain life on the basis of physics but I vividly remember being impressed by the notion that life could be defined as being a physiochemical system capable of temporarily maintaining a state of negative entropy.  While Schrodinger also addressed the other attributes of a living organism, especially the genetics and the reproductive aspects, it was the thermodynamic part of the definition of life that particularly attracted me.

The first law of thermodynamics states that the total amount of energy in nature, i.e., the universe is constant.  As often stated “energy is neither created nor destroyed”.  However, the form of energy can change, e.g., light can be converted to heat and solar, water or wind energy can be converted to electrical energy, etc.  However, the total amount of all forms of energy remains constant.  The second law of thermodynamics states that all uneven distribution of matter and energy, such as that composing structures, geological formations, living organisms,etc. will tend to decompose so that ultimately all particles and energy will be evenly distributed throughout the universe.  Obviously, this is a long range process but the tendency for all matter and energy to trend in this direction is defined as an increase in entropy or increase in disorder of the universe.  Thus, the second law of thermodynamics predicts the universe will ultimately have no regions of increased concentrations of matter or energy.  In other words, it will become a totally boring eternity of homogenous structureless specks.

I don’t know if a physicist would totally agree with my layman’s attempt to describe the first two laws of thermodynamics but I think you get the picture.  For something to be alive is for that entity to have the capacity to maintain its structure and life functions, i.e., remain in a state of negative entropy, for as long as it is alive.  We might even go so far as to claim that the ability of any physiochemical system to maintain such a state of negative entropy for any finite period of time is the ultimate test of life and the period of time negative entropy is maintained is its life span.

Now, let me introduce a notion advanced by a brilliant young assistant professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Jeremy England.  His ideas which have been summarized in the January 28, 2014 issue of Scientific American under the title of “A New Physics Theory of Life” (an article by Natalie Wolchover and reprinted from Quanta Magazine) essentially state that life may have arisen simply because it is better able to capture energy from the environment and dissipate it as heat than a comparable glob of non-living matter, thus, better fulfilling the prophesy of the second l;aw of thermodynamics.  As stated by England, “you start with a clump of atoms, and if you shine a light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant”.  Obviously, this is grossly overstated but it simply implies that because living things are more effective in bringing about an increase in the entropy of the universe, they will eventually spontaneously come into existence as a consequence of the diving force of the laws of physics.

Jeremy England’s work stretches in many other directions as well, some of which are suggested in the Scientific American article.  Examples include bio-differentiation and the behavior of certain self-replicating non-living systems such as microsphere structures and chemical circuits partially composed of biomolecules.

For me, this work suggests an interesting alternative to the current notion of why life exists.  “Popular hypotheses credit a primordial soup, a bolt of lightning and a colossal stroke of luck.”  According to England,” luck may have little to do with it.”  It’s suggested that the origin and subsequent evolution of life follow from the fundamental laws of nature and “should be as unsurprising as rocks rolling downhill.”

Although not mentioned in the article, I feel that an obvious corollary to Jeremy England’s hypothesis, if it becomes an established theory, is that life must necessarily exist or will eventually arise at billions or, perhaps, trillions of locations throughout the universe.