Opinion- Can the Chemical Sciences Stand Alone without a Physics Foundation? —

Does chemistry owe its existence to physics or is chemistry an independent discipline to itself? Many physicists believe that all the other sciences can be derived from Physics. To some chemists, physics and chemistry are distinct from one another— but question does not have a  complete resolution. To the late physicist, Richard Feynman, all of the sciences are derived from physics. And, if one ever gets to listen to any of his lectures, he can be rather convincing! However, there are a good four decades since his lectures were recorded. And, chemistry continues to develop. 

While physics and chemistry are rightfully a quantitative and an investigative sciences, chemistry is recognized for its creative and inventive ways. And, yes chemistry does have quite a bit in common with physics. However, it is argued that object of chemistry is the creative, craftsmanship of changing and combining of elements and molecules. It is the correct combinations that eventually lead to life and many of the molecules that we see on Earth.

Just like the alchemists, modern chemistry continues searching for a proverbial philosopher’s stone. This stone could be argued as being the commonality that links all combinations of molecules, atoms, and elements that allows for reactions to occur.

The Evidence Supporting Chemistry to be a Fundamental Science?

If there is any argument to be made for why chemistry fundamentally differs from physics— it would be mathematics and the experimentation behind it. And, it is here that we find reasons for constructing a mathematical edifice for its reactivity.

Understanding and utilizing reactivity hinges on knowing what kinds of chemicals will react to form ‘what different types of molecules.’ That descriptive aspect of chemistry is known as chemical kinetics. It utilizes a classification scheme for reactivity, its basis is how mechanistic descriptions are utilized.

Mechanistic descriptions utilize the manner by which molecules and reacting molecules orient themselves to give the most likely products. These mechanistic descriptions finally bore scientific results when experimental evidence was shown in many cases to match theoretically derived hypotheses. However, it is in the creative craft of reactions and synthesis where we may attempt to find resolution to the conundrum.

Thus, the fundamental problem of chemistry is to understand chemical changes.

Where do we find a fundamental ways  to describe chemistry without physics? –It isn’t easy…

Quantum mechanics famously explains chemistry. And to the bane of some physicists, the Uncertainty Principle asserts that electrons are a slippery slope to pin down. Finding the position of an electron does not allow one to find it’s velocity. Chemists, on the other hand, describe chemical reactions in terms of electron pushing.

And therein lies the potential solution. Describing chemical reactivity in the fundamental terms of quantum mechanics is the means to develop chemistry (without fundamental physics — mechanics, ). Don’t measure the immeasurable electron, measure atom movement spectrally. 

In the early 1980s to 1990s, experimental evidence accumulated by physical chemists showed that reaction dynamics could be pinned down with femtosecond spectroscopy. The primary developer was Dr. Ahmed Zewail

The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1999. NobelPrize.org. Nobel Media AB 2019. Thu. 9 May 2019. <https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/1999/summary/>

The recognition that atoms or reacting molecules can be measured with spectral results is now a foundation by which chemistry is fundamental.

Knowing chemical reactivity without classical physics to aid ihe descriptions is half the battle-

While it may take several generations of scientists to move the chemical sciences further into a foundational grounding without physics, it is moving slowly in that direction.

Advertisements

Prejudice Comes in Many Stripes?

Many of my posts in 2018 dealt with the civil rights and the ways people  gave themselves a sense of coping and justice. Possessing the ability to tolerate hate and injustice is one of the hallmarks of inner peace and serenity. 

So, I will write and comment on the issue in the context of Border walls to the South and the injustices faced by Hispanics and others.

So, let’s start–

 

When the Christopher Columbus landed in Hispaniola in 1492 – he brought disease, death, and suffering to two continents of the Americas. While he may have believed that Catholicism could save the Indian and liberate the land for Spain, the parochial outlook of Columbus is not over emphasized.

As related in the book 1492, the Americas were a land of plenty to the original Americans. The original Americans knew how to steward the land properly. They burned acre upon acre of foliage and tree and deposited the ash into the soil. The subsequent ash enriched the soil — the Indian planted native crops and subsisted upon vegetation and bison.

The bison, to the Indian, were not as numerous as depicted in accounts by many of the early settlers. The Indian knew to not slaughter all of the bison — but enough remained, so that in subsequent seasons, new bison replaced the hunted bison.

When the first settlers came upon the virgin forests of Kentucky and the thousands of head of bison in the Ohio river valley (and beyond), they encountered an anomaly. Thousands upon thousands of Indians had lived in the Ohio river valley and in the states of Kentucky and Tennessee. They were gone– but why and how?

Popularizations of savage Indians being slaughtered by settlers tells a reckless half-truth — the Indians disappeared. Yes, they died at the hands of settlers -but not only by the gun. It was through small pox, the plague, and viral infections that settlers brought with them from Europe.

Not much is made of the fact that European horses brought small pox and the settlers brought tuberculosis, as well. These two diseases decimated the Indian populations east of the Rockies.

The settlers — in their brand of wisdom — did not realize the Indians had been on American continents for thousands of years prior to their arrival. However, the Indians possessed wisdom and not ignorance as suggested by some.

The Truth?

While the settlers utilized their own brand of wisdom garnished from experience and the Bible, the indian understood the land and the wisdom gained by working the land. Over thousands of years, the original Americans learned that they could not cruelly take and not replenish the resources of their homes. 

Presently, civilization stands at a nexus point –a crossroads where the continuation of not replenishing the land and it resources could spell extinction for some. As some who fail to understand that it is wrong to not replenish the land, they may disappear in an ironic act of karma. However, karma, for all of its irony and bitter truths, is a law of our own Earth –or how we act through our miss-perceptions of existence. Karma is chauvinistic view of our world and the Universe.

While I have as yet not found karma to be the accurate justification for losses and gains, it is humanity’s personal law of retribution and existence. Scientifically speaking, there is no physical evidence for a law of karma –only an ignorance to one’s actions and the effects of the actions taken. Thus, when some speak of karma coming to their assistance, individuals invoke propagating ignorance. And perhaps, their own extinction is at stake, as well if they’re not careful. 

 

While it may never pan out for some – what is real and true in the physical world are the laws of science- biology, physics, chemistry, and their allied fields.

 

What of Bigotry?

Well, at the roots of bigotry are hate, ignorance, and false pride; or, in certain contemporary terms, narcissism. Narcissism is an interesting term — it is bandied about in many venues. From evil-bosses and sexist chauvinists to political leaders and ex-lovers, we hear about and see a lot of it. 

This is where “change can take place” – real and unabashed change. This present age of hated, whether personal or overt, presents reasons for some to affect change.

How?- let me list a few:

  • set an example for others 
  • gently confront or correct others in their misdeeds
  • write and expose to the wider public the persons responsible
  • act in concert in a group setting — when was the last time you noticed a group of individuals act kindly and compassionately towards hate?
  • get the right authorities to act –if they exist, to enforce laws that violate basic, human rights

Bigotry can not co-exist with truth, love, and justice — they are polar opposites.

Peace-

Modifications to Photosynthesis: A Simpler Way to Energy Efficiency and Fine Chemicals

Photosynthesis is a biochemical cycle that produces oxygen and a simple sugar, glucose. In present research, scientists are learning to make photosynthesis a process that can displace commercial chemical production and as a replacement to fossil fuels. It is in photosynthetic processes that research is done to improve the chemical apparatus used by plants and bacteria—making the processes environmentally safer than commercial syntheses or energy production.

What is the Chemistry Behind Photosynthesis?

Many of us in the U.S. learn about photosynthesis in High School science classes as one fundamental chemical process. The process is portrayed by a single equation. Plants and bacteria produce oxygen (O2), water (H2O), and a simple sugar- glucose (C6H12O6) :

                                   6CO+ 12H2O + UV-Light —> C6H12O+ 6O+ 6H2O.

However, the one equation does not tell a complete story. Photosynthesis involves two fundamental processes that include hundreds of individual reactions –light  activated reactions and reactions occurring with no light activation. The two processes with numerous equations are known as biochemical cycles — the cycles of photosynthesis can be represented by the following chart:

Photosynthesis utilizes hundreds of distinct chemical reactions. Diagram of photosynthesis in the chloroplast of a leaf. Image from Brookhaven National Lab https://www.bnl.gov/chemistry/ap/images/Home_01_HR.jpg

How To Modify Photosynthesis?

While the question becomes- what reactions are most conducive towards modification? No plant- nor bacteria-based photosynthetic reaction is modified easily.

As researchers sought ways to modify photosynthesis, they did not find suitable mimicking reactions to take the place of natural photosynthetic reactions. Attempts modifying photosynthesis result with inefficient substitutes that cannot compete with plants, themselves.

One example is to replace biological apparatus of the Calvin cycle with a synthetic catalysts. The Calvin cycle produces a simple sugar- glucose, from carbon dioxide. Thus,

CO2 + H2O  –> C6H12O6.

While the reaction, as written, is not easy to fathom, biology performs the process simply. The plant or bacterium uses molecules called enzymes to push the carbon dioxide molecule to become a glucose molecule.  Enzymes are far larger than the molecules they catalyze. In this particular case, the enzyme surrounds the carbon dioxide molecule while the hydrogens and oxygens are added in one step.

Proposed analogous synthetic reactions use a metal catalyst to add 12 hydrogen atoms and 6 oxygen atoms in separate steps to the carbon dioxide to make the simple sugar- glucose, C6H12O6. While researcher’s results showed the metal catalyst as ineffective, molecules, that can better mimic enzymes, are required.

Quoting from a publication of the American Chemical Society in 2017–researchers from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley can be quoted “… it would be unreasonably hopeful to imagine we could currently capture all the performance capabilities of biological CO2 reduction…” Chemical processes of photosynthesis adapted to an almost static soil and mostly pure water over the course of billions of years– our current attempts pale in comparison. Knowing that sunlight shining on plants and other organisms is variable as well further confounds the issue.

The following table captures the essence of the argument of the previous three paragraphs:

Photosynthetic organisms with improved light harvesting capacities have light gathering efficiencies greater than 20 percent, are suitable for further alteration. Inorganic materials improve light harvesting. Research continues in this area. Image by John A. Jaksich

Thus, researchers improve light harvesting actions of organisms. Of all aspects related to photosynthesis, organisms efficiently harvest only 3 percent light. The 3 percent number is the biggest reason to approach photosynthesis research to improve light harvesting

Modifications to Photosynthesis Understood from a ‘First Principles Approach’

Cybernetic modifications to photosynthesis is as confusing as black hole physics-- both possessing a sense of a new frontier.
Humanity has entered a new age– learning to alter its larger environment– anthropocene. The age of man (or anthropocene) gives us choices that can save us from potential extinction. Modifications to photosynthesis push the frontiers of science into areas that may prevent our eventual extinction. Image by NASA/JPL-Caltech.

When discerning ways to modify photosynthesis, scientists are left with one easy option. The improvement of light-gathering efficiency is addressed because the photosynthetic apparatus shuts out more light that it can handle. Given that plants and bacteria respond to increased light through the slow evolutionary processes that spawned their genesis, we proceed with evolution in mind. When increased light normally coincides with growth and carbon dioxide uptake, we take it one step at a time. Once light gathering efficiency is improved, scientists can take the next step: the discernment of plant photo-biochemistry and chemistry.

The present course of climate change has made research in this area a major concern. Of late, average yearly temperature changes appear to increase exponentially. When the year 2050 arrives, we may not possess the luxury of accepting fossil fuels as our source chemistry dependence–if we are still around to do so.

ADDITIONAL READING & REFERENCES

GARY F. MOORE and GARY W. BRUDVIG. Annual Reviews in Condensed Matter Physics. 2010, Energy Conversion in Photosynthesis: A Paradigm for Solar Fuel Production.

ICHIRO TERASHIMA, et. al. Plant Physiology. 2011,Leaf Functional Anatomy in Relation to Photosynthesis.

PEIDONG YANG and JEAN-MARIE TARASCON. Nature Materials, 2012, Towards Systems Materials Engineering.

CHONG LIU, et. al. Science. 2016, Water splitting–biosynthetic system with CO2 reduction efficiencies exceeding photosynthesis.

NIKOLAY KORNIENKO, et. al. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2016, Spectroscopic elucidation of energy transfer in hybrid inorganic–biological organisms for solar-to chemical production.

J. BLOEMEN, et. al. Acta Horticulturae. 2013, Understanding Plant Responses to Drought: How Important is Woody Tissue Photosynthesis?

C. LIU, et. al. Science. 2016, Water Splitting-Biosynthetic System with CO2 Reduction Efficiencies Exceeding Photosynthesis.

STUART A. WEST, et. al. Proceedings of the Royal Society, B. 2002, Sanctions and mutualism stability: why do rhizobia fix nitrogen?

KELSEY K. SAKIMOTO, et. al. Accounts of Chemical Research. 2017, Cyborgian Material Design for Solar Fuel Production: The Emerging Photosynthetic Biohybrid Systems.

Cold Fusion Revisited?

This is a modified version of the original Cold Fusion setup of Pons and Fleischmann. The modified setup reproduced findings of Pons and Fleischmann and addressed the temperature fluctuations originally found by Pons and Fleischmann. StevenBKrivit [CC BY-SA 3.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)%5D

While chemistry is the science that explains matter’s transformation; on occasion, chemists puzzle and misinterpret their own results. It is an understanding of transformations that allows chemists to attempt to improve our lives. While the topic of cold fusion is one that elucidates incredulity among those who heard it, the story of cold fusion is one that opened opportunities in different areas of research.

While the reaction is one that is still being studied – albeit it is a process that elucidates how heavy water produces hydrogen gas. The reaction, seemingly simple, reveals misunderstandings that researchers fall into when their personal biases interfere with their research. The physical chemists who discovered cold-fusion never saw their efforts become golden –instead the reaction now bears their name. Cold fusion goes by the name– the Pons-Fleischmann effect.

What is Nuclear Fusion?

Nuclear fusion is known as a hot, energetic process that powers the Sun and creates the chemical elements. Paraphrasing and expanding the entry from Encyclopedia Britannica–

(fusion is a) process by which nuclear reactions between light elements form heavier elements (up to iron) – The vast energy potential of nuclear fusion was first exploited in thermonuclear weapons, or hydrogen bombs, which were developed in the decade immediately following WWII

The process of hot, nuclear fusion is yet to be harnessed as a true energy source.

What is Cold Fusion?

While hot fusion takes place at millions of degrees Fahrenheit, cold fusion took place at room temperature. Moreover, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica–

In 1989 two chemists, Martin Fleishmann of the University of Utah and Stanley Pons of the University of Southampton in England, announced that they had produced fusion reactions at essentially room temperature. Their system consisted of electrolytic cells containing heavy water (deuterium oxide, D2O) and palladium rods that absorbed the deuterium from the heavy water. Efforts to give a theoretical explanation of the results failed, as did worldwide efforts to reproduce the claimed cold fusion.

What is Immediately True from the Event?

We have chemical reactivity that needed further investigation with no publicizing. It was an instance of poor professionalism.

  1. Fusion energy – the energy that powers the Sun, takes place at thousands of degrees Fahrenheit. Cold fusion took place at room temperature. While the two processes seem disparate in terms of temperature, both processes formed hydrogen gas. However, neither process has been successfully replaced fossil fuels.
  2. Another issue dealt with the scale of the experiment – the cold fusion could fit on top of a lab bench. Present attempts to produce hot fusion energy take place in specialized nuclear reactors. The fusion reactors are housed in buildings that can fit tens of dozens (if not hundreds) of “lab bench sized” cold fusion reactors.

Some have labeled cold fusion as bad science. It has also been labeled as completely irreproducible. However, the result is not evidence of no reaction–just poorly investigated science.

What Exactly Happened?

When Pons and Fleischmann passed an electric current through radioactive water, they produced an excess of hydrogen gas and a seemingly anomalous rise of temperature. Fleischmann and Pons also believed they had observed gamma ray production from their reaction vessel. Gamma rays are a by-product of hot nuclear fusion.

They elected to report the reaction results via News Conference; this turned an anomalous but interesting result into a ‘public relations disaster’ for them and their home university. They believed they found a ‘holy grail’ – result that could replace fossil fuels and other ways to produce energy.

However, researchers from around the world could not repeat their results. In fact, Fleischmann and Pons could not reproduce their own results in many instances.

An Incorrect Interpretation of Fusion leads to LENR- (Low Energy Nuclear Reactions).

It took nearly twenty years until researchers understood that Fleischmann and Pons made an interesting discovery. It was a real chemical reaction that took place. It ultimately became known as the Fleischmann-Pons effect. It produced hydrogen gas and small amount of Helium. The production of helium lent some credence to original being one of fusion:

H +H –> He (helium)

However, the reaction is not the same as occurs in sun to produce He and other elements.

Scientists discovered the Fleischmann-Pons effect to be one in which -the passage of electric current along with the mechanical agitation of the reaction vessel disrupted the deuterium-oxygen bonds in radioactive water.

However, they were not producing fusion reactions like the sun; rather, they produced low energy bond rearrangements with a small but anomalous temperature rise.

Further experimentation showed the anomalous temperature rise to be the production of helium from heavy water– also lending credence to a fusion interpretation.

The helium production results from deuterium (from heavy water) embedded in the palladium electrode (thus converting to helium). While the helium production is proven as accurate, its exact mechanism is not certain.

However, the reaction for cold fusion became:

D2O + electricity –> D2 + He + heat (in the presence of palladium metal).

While the reaction is not suitable for producing great amounts of hydrogen gas nor helium, it may lead to hydrogen fuel cell technology in the distant future.

Will LENR lead to Energy Self-Sufficiency?

This purported Holy Grail is one of illusion – not an immediate discovery that could alleviate fossil fuel dependence. Presently, cold fusion is a research topic that is pursued by various research groups. Its chemistry is not hot fusion—  but it is re-termed. It is known as the Pons-Fleischmann effect. The production of helium is still under investigation–however, it is a low energy and a low temperature fusion product, nonetheless. Thus, the possibility for energy self-sufficiency from this reaction is many years in the future.

 

 

ADDITIONAL READING & REFERENCES

MARK DAVIDSON. Journal of Physics Conferences Series. 2015, Variable Mass theories in Relativistic Quantum Mechanics as an Explanation for Anomalous Low Energy Nuclear Phenomena.

MELVIN H. MILES. Chemical and Chemical Engineering News. 2017, More on Cold Fusion.

S. SPVZK. ICCF-14 International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science. 2008, SPAWAR Systems Center-Pacific Pd:D Co-Deposition Research:Overview of Refereed LENR Publications.

MARTIN FLEISCHMANN and STANLEY PONS. Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry. 1989, Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of deuterium.

P. L. HAGELSTEIN. et. al. Proceedings of the 11th international conference on cold fusion. 2006, Physical Effects in Metal Deuterides, in Condensed matter Nuclear Science.

Extraordinary Claims of Martian Fossils and the Evidence ?

ALH84001

This Martian meteorite contains molecular signatures that may change how we see life. NASA [Public domain]

Scientists draw on experimental results to answer important scientific questions. When an extraordinary claim happens, the scientist answered experimental questions with seemingly, incredible answers: potential Martian fossils.

Meteorite ALH84001, discovered in Antarctica in 1984 by NASA scientists, was ejected from Mars about 15 million years ago by an asteroid or meteor strike. According to scientists, ALH84001 was orbiting in our solar system space during most of that time. Surprisingly, the meteor fell to Antarctica only 13,000 years ago. 

Seemingly, Martian microfossils were found in Meteorite ALH84001 in 1996. While the claim by NASA scientists of microfossils is not completely correct – evidence was presented by the scientists that lent credence to a potential find of past life. Eventually, the claim was fomented by public opinion and even the president Clinton White House commented on the find. 

Microfossils

Earthen microfossils are several orders of magnitude larger than the purported Martian microfossils. Images by Frank Rattray Lillie, Carl Richard Moore, and Alfred Clarence Redfield

We need to first define microfossil?

What are Microfossils?

The Merriam Webster Dictionary of the English language defines microfossil:

Noun, A small fossil that typically can be studied only microscopically and that may be either a fragment of a larger organism or an entire minute organism

While many of us have seen a fossil, we rarely ask ourselves what about microfossils?

An Extraordinary Claim?

Meteorite ALH84001, analyzed thoroughly by NASA scientists in 1996 – seemed to  contain micro-fossils  within the rock. The shapes-contained in and chemical analysis within the rock resembled past life forms, according to NASA scientists.

The evidence for potential past life was the following:

(1)   The shapes of Martian fossils resembled earthen micro-fossils – namely cyanobacteria.

(2)   The Martian fossils encapsulated trace amounts of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons.

(3)   The so-called fossils possessed magnetic properties – much like earthen Magnetites.

(4)   All important chemical components from the fossil contained chemicals from Mars only- no cross contamination from Antarctica

Fake Fossils

Purported microfossils from Mars. While the long worm-like structure resembles ancient Earth fossils, most scientists agree it is not from Martian life. Image by NASA

According to NASA scientists, Mars was inhospitable to life in 1996. In essence, the claim of fossilized lifeforms was extraordinary. If Mars harbored life, scientists believed the planet must have, at one time, resembled the Earth. Mars, in 1996, appeared  dry and inhospitable — and without liquid water or breathable air.

While having liquid water is a major prerequisite for life, Mars’ past remained mysterious.

However, let’s look at the incident.

What are the Chemical Components Behind Martian Fossils?

Earthly fossilization processes occur as minerals from the soil seep through the membranes of the dead organism.  That process is permineralization. Martian permineralization processes are unknown.

In a 2012 publication from NASA, the scientists drew the following conclusions-

  • The purported fossils were calcium carbonate encapsulations of  Martian geology- its formation may be either biological or a strictly inorganic process.
  • Within the encapsulations are trace amounts or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, Martian minerals containing iron, silicon, sulfur, and more carbonate.
  • The chemistry of formation is typical to both Earth and Mars- however its real origins are in doubt.
  • There is no evidence for Martian cyanobacteria.
  • Water needed to be present for the formation of the Martian ‘fossils.’ Water is present on Mars today and was in the distant past.
  • Humans or robotic missions must retrieve Martian soil and rocks — regiolith.

What Can We Say About Mars?

One can look at photographs of Mars from current NASA missions – one gets the sense of a desolate planet that once had water flowing in certain areas. The Martian geology also shows signs of water levels that receded over long periods of time and a lot of sand in other areas, as well. However, we see no signs of past life- no bones or macro-fossils in any area.

In a 2018 publication by NASA scientists, we note that if there was ever life on the planet, we need to dig and extract Martian rocks from below. NASA scientists cite the extreme ultraviolet radiation from the sun and cosmic rays from universe that penetrate the Martian soil (up to the first 9 feet, at least).

That is an answer to why we don’t see Martian life – life that we do not recognize or understand. Life based upon DNA.

Mars soil

The Martian surface is red because of an oxidation process. The iron, in the Martian soil, oxidizes to rust or Iron Oxide (Fe2O3). In fact, iron is not the major component of Mars- it silicon. Image from the NASA Pathfinder mission 1997.

Ordinary Science To Prove or Disprove Extraordinary Claims?

The statement, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” was stated by Carl Sagan in his landmark series, Cosmos- A Personal Voyage. The statement needs to be restated – presently, scientists cannot prove or disprove whether Mars has life. A flat statement of life on a distant planet is an unproven claim -thus ordinary experimentation that can take up to several decades to prove or disprove the claim.

The passage of time renders an experiment extraordinary or unsolved. However, recent experimentation on similar meteorites point at the life’s signatures in chondrite meteors. Chondrite meteors bear primarily carbon-bearing molecules– ones similar to ALH84001.

ADDITIONAL READING & REFERENCES: 

J. WILLIAM SCHOPF, et. al. Astrobiology. 2005. Raman Imagery: A New Approach to Assess the Geochemical Maturity and Biogenicity of Permineralized Precambrian Fossils.

FIONA L. PLOWS, et. al. Geophysica et Cosmochimica Acta. 2003. Evidence That Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Two Carbonaceous Chondrites Predate Parent-Body Formation.

MONICA M. GRADY,  et. al. Astronomy and Geophysics. 1997, Microfossils from Mars: A Question of Faith.

MIKHAIL Y. ZOLOTOV and MIKHAIL V. MIRONENKO. Journal of Geophysical Research. 2007, Timing of Acid Weathering on Mars: A Kinetic-Thermodynamic Assessment.

THOMAS STEPHAN, et. al. Meteoritics and Planetary Science. 2003, TOF-SIMS Analysis of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Allan Hills 84001.

K.L. THOMAS-KEPRTA, et .al. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. 2009, Origins of Magnetite Nanocrystals in Martian Meteorite ALH84001.

JACEK WIERZCHOS and CARMEN ASCASO. International Journal of Astrobiology. 2002, Microbial Fossil Record of Rocks from the Ross Desert, Antarctica: Implications in the Search for Past Life on Mars.

JOHN W. MOREAU and THOMAS G. SHARP. Astrobiology2004, A Transmission Electron Microscopy Study of Silica and Kerogen Biosignatures in 1.9 Ga Gunflint Microfossils.

A. STEELE, et. al. Science. 2012, A Reduced Organic Carbon Component in Martian Basalts. 

CHRISTOPHER R. WEBSTER, et. al. Science. 2018, Background Levels of Methane in Mars’ Atmosphere Show Strong Seasonal Variations.

PAUL VOOSEN. Science. 2018, Nasa Curiosity Hits Organic Paydirt on Mars.

 

 

 

At the Santa Fe Institute

The brain is perhaps one of the last frontiers. It is also the ultimate black box–

Baldscientist

One of the main desires that a scientist has (yes, we have wants and desires just like everyone else!) is to be recognized by other scientists. I got a taste of such recognition just a couple of weeks ago. In early December (Note: This happened in December 2017), I participated in an invitation-only event at the Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico (SFI from now on).

What is the SFI? I’m glad you asked. It is the “The world headquarters for complexity science”, nothing more, nothing less. For a primer on what exactly complexity science is, please go here. Briefly, complexity science encompasses pretty much everything, from the behavior of molecules, organisms, populations (remember my flock of birds post?), epidemics, economies, solar systems, and galaxies… and this is just a small sample of what is it about!

The institute has been described in many ways…

View original post 950 more words

November 2018 #metoo and #8yearsinPower and a #Solution

eightyears.001

If it wasn’t for the bumbling stupidity of the Republican mysogyny, a lot of the of the gains of the 2018 midterms would not have occured. Facts remain the same- money will dictate how most will vote. In my opinion, this is a sad indictment of the status quo.

Not only have we failed to squelch racism– it still rules many parts of the country — it is in the form of gerrymandering and voter suppression.

What we have learned is that more needs to be done-

Money from the far Right must be countered with a mainstream attempt from the Left to tell it like it is. Not back down — I, for one, plan to be more socially active in the coming year especially when it comes to calling a spade a spade. No more backing away — from political activism and countering falsehoods with the truth.

I will be posting my attempts on this blog to counter what I believe to be falsehood straight-on.

Cheers,

John