Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.xs3.de!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Neutrality of matter; matter/anti-matter Re: origin of biological chirality?
Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2024 10:08:26 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 88
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <jm4kcj1na8dq84o40k0jhhg05vjcskok4r@4ax.com>
References: <v9rai1$22tkd$1@dont-email.me> <9u94cjl2fv6heurev0aa1mqmcrslj3evv6@4ax.com> <66c6e5b3$0$3692$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <vabnrr$195bi$1@dont-email.me> <vac9er$1baj7$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="51911"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: ForteAgent/7.20.32.1218
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:/Du3atMqI+lfWjXkbNhD75T/yfA=
Bytes: 6574

On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 10:34:20 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:

>On 24/08/2024 05:34, Pro Plyd wrote:
>> J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 00:08:49 +0100, the following appeared
>>>> in talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
>>>> <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
>>>>
>>>>> A study has found that lipid membranes can be selectively permeable to
>>>>> one or the other sugar or amino acid enantiomer. The study used 
>>>>> membrane
>>>>> models inspired by the membranes of modern organisms, so is not 
>>>>> directly
>>>>> relevant to abiogenesis. However it still raises the possibility that
>>>>> membrane selectivity was the source of chirality in biological
>>>>> molecules. One possible issue is does this effect require chiral
>>>>> membrane lipids; if so it only move the question of the origin of
>>>>> chirality from sugars and amino acids to lipids.
>>>>>
>>>> ISTM that this is similar to the "matter/antimatter"
>>>> imbalance; neither is inherently more "natural" than the
>>>> other, but one became more prevalent. And IIRC, the m/am
>>>> imbalance is now assumed to be a matter of chance in the
>>>> original ratio. I could; of course, be mistaken in that;
>>>> it's been years since I followed it even casually.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.04.23.590732v2.full.pdf
>>>
>>> It isn't. The left-handed molecules can be converted into right-handed
>>> ones, and vica versa, by taking them apart and reassembling them.
>>> For matter/antimatter there is no such possibility.
>>> Disassembling doesn't help,
>>> because you cannot turn antiquarks into quarks.
>>> Biological chirality is a triviality,
>>> the matter/antimatter imbalance is a deep problem.
>>> Where has all that antimatter gone?
>> 
>> Well, sorta agree with the analogy if one only
>> is considering the ratio. But also agree with the
>> observation about matter/anti-matter not being
>> able to be turned into their opposites. Just
>> happened to come across the following, another
>> mystery of sorts...
>> 
>> https://www.livescience.com/physics-mathematics/particle-physics/a-remarkable-conspiracy-why-is-matter-neutral-physicist-frank-close-explores-the-mystery-in-a-new-book
>> July 28, 2024
>> 
>> Since the discovery of the proton and the
>> electron in the 20th century, a mystery
>> persists at the core of the atom: Despite
>> belonging to completely different particle
>> families and being radically different in
>> size, the charges of these two particles
>> completely balance each other out — enabling
>> a universe where gravity dominates. But why?
>> ...
>
>Charge conservation is a consequence of "the global gauge invariance of 
>the electromagnetic field". From the existence of beta decay it can be 
>deduced that the charges on the proton and positron are the same (unless 
>you're willing to postulate that neutrinos are charged). From the 
>existence of electron-positron annihilation it can be deduced that the 
>charges on the electron and positron are equal in magnitude (unless 
>you're willing to postulate that photons are charged). From this we can 
>conclude that the charges on protons and electrons balance each other out.
>
>So we are left to rephrase the question as "why are there equal numbers 
>of protons and electrons?" (Other charged particles decay to protons and 
>electrons (and photons and neutrinos) reasonably quickly.
>
This sounds to me like a close relative of the Anthropic
Principle, in that a universe in which charge, rather than
gravity, dominates would most likely be one in which life
couldn't exist. IOW, "I am, therefore charges balance."
>
-- 

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
 the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov