About this book
The author is a theoretical physicist famous for the ``Schrödinger equation'' and ``Schrödinger's cat'' (winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1933).
The original text is
WHAT IS LIFE? The Physical Aspect of the Living Cell, 1944 Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
The first translation was published as Iwanami Shinsho in 1951. The double helix structure of DNA, known as Watson-Crick base pairing, was announced in 1953, so the words "chromosome" and "gene" appear, but not the word "DNA."
In that sense, it is an "old book". I don't know which of the biological items written in this book are said to be "correct" to date.
The author talks about ``what is life'' based on the knowledge of quantum mechanics.
solid, liquid and gas
H 2 O (water) has three states (now called "phases"): "ice" as a "solid", "water" as a "liquid" at room temperature, and "steam" as a "gas". I'll take it. Schrödinger puts it this way:
Molecule = Solid = Crystal
Gas = Liquid = Amorphous (Solid) (P.117)
So-called amorphous solids are either not really amorphous or not really solids. The basic structure of graphite crystals in "amorphous" charcoal filaments was discovered using X-rays. Charcoal is therefore solid, but at the same time crystalline. If a crystalline structure does not exist, it must be considered a liquid with very high viscosity (internal friction). Such substances can be distinguished from true solids by the fact that they do not have a well-defined melting temperature and latent heat of fusion. When heated, such materials gradually soften and eventually liquefy without any discontinuity. (P.117)
It is well known that the gas and liquid states are continuous. (P.118)
Hmm, I don't really understand. In any case, what Schrödinger wanted to say was that genes as macromolecules are stable.
This is because the atoms that make up a single molecule, regardless of their number, are all bound together by forces of exactly the same nature as the many atoms that make up a true solid, that is, a crystal. The molecules have the same rigid structure as in crystals. It is exactly this robustness that we rely on to explain genetic persistence! (P.118)
The bodies of living things are made up of a huge number of atoms (molecules)
Quantum mechanics is a theory of the microscopic world such as atoms. The existence of something is expressed as a probability. The location and energy of each particle is constrained by the "uncertainty principle," and the particles move completely irregularly (Brownian motion, diffusion). But the bodies of living things do not appear to be random randomness. If it is made up of few atoms, it will move in a stochastic and random manner, but if it is made up of many atoms, it will have "order."
As is already well known, all atoms are constantly undergoing completely chaotic thermal motion, and this motion, so to speak, prevents the atoms themselves from acting in an ordered and orderly manner, and this motion occurs between a small number of atoms. This is because it does not allow events to occur according to some clearly recognized law. It is only when a huge number of atoms act together that statistical laws emerge to govern the behavior of these "groups" of atoms, and the accuracy of these laws depends on the number of atoms involved. The more it increases, the more it increases. This is actually how events come to exhibit a truly orderly appearance. All known physical and chemical laws that play an important role in the life of living things are of such statistical nature. (P.25)
amount of molecules
The author explains how much a molecule is in a glass of water.
Suppose we were able to mark all the molecules in a glass of water. Next, imagine that you poured the water in this glass into the ocean and stirred the ocean enough so that the molecules with this marker were distributed throughout the seven seas. If you were to draw a glass of water from a desired location in the ocean, you would find about 100 molecules with landmarks in it. (P.18)
Did you get the image?
Nuclear power plant treated water (contaminated water) is being released (wasted, dumped) into the sea. Because the water contains a radioactive isotope called tritium, it has been difficult to treat it for a long time. Tritium "exists in abundance in nature" (Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry Agency for Natural Resources and Energy website " Countermeasures against Fukushima's contaminated water, putting safety and security first ② What exactly is tritium? " 2018-11-22) However, how much does "a lot" mean? The treated water is diluted with seawater and released into the ocean. I don't know if it's "safe and secure," but is it "scientific" to dilute it with seawater and release it into the ocean? I just think it's a "waste of tax money".
When tritium decays to deuterium or hydrogen, it releases extra electrons. This is "radioactivity (beta rays)". The problem is that this radioactivity might destroy genes.
Polymers as non-periodic solids
The author uses X-rays (electromagnetic waves) to explain genetic variations (mutations).
(one)The number of mutations that occur is,Increases exactly in proportion to the amount of X-ray irradiation.therefore(as I already mentioned)It can actually be said that the coefficient of increase. (P.88)
Mutations are therefore not cumulative effects caused by the combined forces of successive small fractions of the emitted X-rays. A mutation must be some single event that occurs in one chromosome during irradiation. (P.88-89)
The reason for this explanation is that in order for genes to change as a solid (polymer), a certain amount of energy must be applied "all at once" to change (excite) the state of the molecules. (single event). There are "discontinuous stages" in the state of molecules, and they do not change even if energy is gradually applied. That is the law of quantum physics.
In other words, the orderliness (permanence) of organisms (genes) is maintained because they have a large number of molecules and because they are solid .
inbreeding
One of the things that I am not ``emotionally'' convinced of is the claim that ``inbreeding has harmful consequences.''
The story of the ``Habsburg lower lip'' is famous. Because there were many consanguineous marriages, a jaw deformity called ``mandibular prognathism'' was common (the areas of the lips and jaw are different in Japan and Europe). This is said to be due to a recessive gene. "Recessive" does not mean "inferior." If we take a pair of genes from our parents, for example A and B, the one that appears (phenotype) when we have AA, AB, and BA is the ``dominant gene,'' and the one that appears only when we have BB is the ``recessive gene.''
Both should be considered as having equal rights in principle - since even normal traits are still the result of mutations.
What actually happens is that, as a general rule, the "type" of an individual is determined according to one of the two manuscripts, which may be the normal one or the mutated one. There is. In this case, the manuscript that defines the "type" is called "dominant," and the other one is called "recessive." To put this another way, mutations are called dominant or recessive, depending on whether they have an immediate effect on changing the type of organism. (P.76-77)
Thus (using these terms), a recessive allele produces an external shape only when homozygous, whereas a dominant allele produces the same shape whether homozygous or heterozygous. (P.78)
Inbreeding is said to ``produce deleterious results'' because both the father and mother are likely to have recessive genes.
There are many peoples and tribes on earth. In terms of individual tribes, many are made up of quite small families (see Japanese villages), but I doubt that the ``incest taboo'' prevents its ``harmful consequences.'' It doesn't seem easy.
Rather, I think all mutations have the same probability, depending on whether they are likely to appear quickly or not. If we focus only on a certain mutation, the probability of that mutation occurring would be greater with inbreeding, but if we consider other mutations, it seems to be the same (I haven't sorted it out well). Furthermore, the appearance of mutations does not occur only in that gene. Shinichi Fukuoka's ``GP2 knockout mouse'', which is talked about a lot in the translator's afterword, shows this. Even if you delete the gene that is said to carry the trait, other genes seem to fill the role.
The translator's afterword points out the misunderstanding of "negative entropy" in Mr. Fukuoka's "Between Living and Inanimate Things," but it was certainly a part that didn't make sense to me when I read the book .
This is because there are two types of entropy in today's physical and chemical sciences: the entropy of thermodynamics and the entropy of information theory derived from communication engineering, and these two are often confused and misunderstood, even by university professors of molecular biology. This is because it promotes confusion. (P.214, translator's afterword, note 1)
I asked my eldest son, and he seems to be right.
equilibrium state
However, like Schrödinger, Mr. Fukuoka's topic is ``Why does an organism's entropy increase and not reach a state of thermodynamic equilibrium?'' The (static) equilibrium state of living organisms is "death." Once a living thing dies, it goes without saying that it does not move, breathe, or metabolize on its own, and its body rots, weathers, and disappears. That is, the entropy will be maximum.
In contrast, Fukuoka says, ``Life is a dynamic equilibrium.'' Through material metabolism, living things try to suppress the increase in entropy by ``taking in energy and constantly releasing entropy.'' The ``flow'' that we take in and expel is life itself. It is very similar to the phrases ``All things are impermanent'' and ``The flowing river is constantly flowing, but the water is never the same.'' (Choaki Kamo, Hojoki, Complete Works of Japanese Classical Literature 27, Shogakukan, p. 27). It's Japanese.
It is also the idea of Heraclitus' ``Transmutation of all things πάντα ῥεῖ.'' Even in Western Europe, there are two ways of thinking: one that sees the world as "movement (change, flow)" and another that denies movement. There are several ways to deny movement, such as that movement itself is an "illusion," that movement itself cannot be captured, and that it cannot be recognized if the object of recognition changes.
There is also the idea that even if we acknowledge the movement itself, by ``retaining'' it, that is, ``recording it,'' the movement ``separates from reality.'' “Character” transcends time and space. It seems to represent reality, yet it is detached from reality. The reality is that it is constantly changing.
That is, "Yes," and this also must not be said. Because if you do that, ``so'' may no longer work. On the other hand, we must not say that it is not so. Because this is also not a movement. Rather, those who advocate this theory must invent some other language. (Plato, Theaetetus , 182b)
The ``nuclear emulsion plate'' often used in quantum physics is also a storage medium. What is stored there are the trajectories of elementary particles in the past. Although the position and energy of elementary particles cannot be determined due to the uncertainty principle, it can be said a posteriori. An "equation" is a "fixed thing." Thinking that "exercise" is written there is a form of thinking. In that culture, novels, plays, photographs, movies, television, and social media are considered to represent "reality (truth)." You can't call it "right" or "wrong." Just like religion, it's a matter of "differences in the way we perceive the world." In that sense, ``science is also a kind of myth.''
life and physics
The orderliness that emerges as life unfolds comes from a different source than the one on the right. In the first place, there seem to be two different kinds of "mechanisms" that can produce orderly phenomena. In other words, one of them is a ``statistical device,'' which creates ``order from disorder.'' Another new thing is something that creates "order from order." (P.159)
In the everyday world, we usually see the latter. And the former was discovered by physicists. We derived "statistical order" from the disordered movement of particles.
Therefore, we should not be discouraged just because it is difficult to unlock life using the keys of ordinary physical laws. The fact that this is difficult is to be expected from the knowledge we have acquired so far about the structure of living things. We must be ready to discover new types of physical laws that are prevalent in living organisms. (P.160)
So what is "life"?
The most notable features are: The first is that this gear is cleverly distributed in multicellular organisms. I gave a rather poetic explanation of this in verse 64. The second is the fact that even a single gear is not a crude human creation, but the most exquisite work of art created by the Gods of Quantum Mechanics. (P.169)
Hmm, I don't really understand after all.
It is certainly true that mutations are "(accidental) deformations of molecules" based on quantum mechanics. And radiation is what causes it. However, we cannot say that this is the cause of evolution.
To put the conflict on the right more simply, Lysenko's side argues that living things and the environment are interlocked in gears that inevitably change the heredity of each living organism in a direction that is adaptive to the environment. On the other hand, the orthodox side advocated a mechanism in which, rather than such an inevitable cogwheel, various accidental genetic changes are sorted out through the sieve of the environment, and the fittest survive. (P.188-189, translator's afterword)
What is wrong with this orthodox idea is, simply put, that if we continue to be ``sifted'', genetic information will continue to decrease and disappear. Schrödinger did not use the word "evolution". He doesn't even use the word "adaptation."
On the other hand, people on Lysenko's side argue that individual living organisms have the power to change their genetic traits in a direction that increases their adaptability to the environment. In this sense, each individual acquires new genetic traits that are adaptive to the environment through interaction with the environment, which is the mechanism that enables the evolution and breeding of living organisms. asserted a judgment or expectation that (P.188)
I haven't read Lysenko's work, so I don't know, but if you think about it from a communist perspective, I think it means that ``society, living things, their evolution, and even humans themselves can be controlled by humans.''
I would like to quote from Michel Foucault's ``The History of Sexuality I: The Will of Wisdom,'' which I am currently rereading.
The society that developed in the 18th century - whether you call it a civil society, a capitalist society, or an industrial society...this society had rules about sexuality. I was trying to express the truth. It was as if this society suspected that the most important secrets were hidden within sex. As if the production of such truth was necessary. As if it were most important for this society that sex be registered not simply in the structure of pleasure production and distribution, but in an ordered system of knowledge. (Shinchosha, P.90)
I think that even if we replace "sexuality" with "life," what Foucault wants to say will not change. And the same goes for socialist societies. "Knowledge" that targets "life" is the result of Western knowledge, and the same is true of Marxism. And the "life" that is captured and treated like mineral specimens or insect specimens is never alive.
Foucault says, `` The science of sex (schienzia sexalis) as opposed to the art of sexual love (ars erotica)'' (p. 92, etc.). The former is what Ilyich calls a ``technique for living,'' and in terms of sex, it is ``(vernacular) gender.'' The latter is "(global) androgynous sex." The attitude of objectifying life (or evolution or history) and attempting to dominate and control it is the same as the thinking of Hegel (and Kant), which Marx criticized.
free will
(i) My body operates as a pure mechanical device, according to the laws of nature.
(ii) Nevertheless, I feel that I am the master of the movement, that I have foreseen the outcome of the movement, and that if the outcome is life-threatening, I feel full responsibility for it. I know from direct experience that there is no doubt that I am in fact fully responsible.
The only conclusion that can be drawn from the two things on the right is that I, in the broadest sense of the word, am at any rate aware of the "motion of atoms."natural lawI think it means being a person who follows and controls the situation. (P.172-173)
Schrödinger seems to be saying that humans are free under the ``laws of nature.'' The ``Upanishads'' appear, and even though the Upanishads say ``Brahma Ichinyo'' (that Brahman and Atman, the universe and ourselves are one), it does not mean that Atman blends into (is a part of) Brahman. , I do not think of subsuming Brahman into Atman. We do not think that Atman "controls" Brahman.
I think this is a Schrödinger-like idea of placing chance (nature) under "law" (low).
