Transition [New]
The Off Topic series continues and this time it is chemical. More precisely, the discussion begins with thermodynamics and this Gibb’s Free Energy diagram.
It seems strangely appropriate to mention that the phrase “Free Energy” was the first thing about academic chemistry that resonated with my childlike entrancement with nature. What more could an Anarchist want? But that’s another story.
There are 2 key aspects to the energy diagram, 1) the relative position of the left and right hand states (pun fully intended) and 2) the shape/height of the transition between them. (this video explains in more detail).
The diagram distinguishes the relative amount of free energy, that is, the difference between the energies of the stable states. Going downhill from left to right is the spontaneous direction and the transition releases energy (in one form or another). To go from right to left require free energy be transferred to the system undergoing transition. The other aspect of the diagram is the energy pathway between stable states, which may involve much larger energies than the difference between them. Activation energy is the barrier between stable states. Just as the diagram implies, the higher the barrier, the less likely it is that the entities described by the stable states will have acquired sufficient energy to reach the peak, the activation state, where it becomes possible to roll down hill into a new stable state. The deeper the fall-off, the more likely the entity will roll down it, but it’s a statistics game and we left out entropy for the moment.
The energy pathway between states determines how fast the “reactants” are converted to “products”. Catalysts accelerate reactions because they lower the activation energy and “push” the transition state toward the desired products, even if the right hand stable state is at higher free energy. Biological catalysts, best represented by enzymes, are very good at these “biosynthetic” mechanisms (but that’s another story). One way to conceive of how enzymes operate at the molecular level is by ratcheting the products up to the transition state by creating a set of smaller “sub-states” and guiding the transition state to particular products. The transition between stable states of (roughly) equal free energy should not be underappreciated (not covered in video).
The Free Energy diagram is intimately related to the image of bistability in my previous diary (Stability and Change) in which the two states are of equivalent free energy. A transportation analogy reflects situation quite nicely. The distance between any two destinations is determined by geography while the rate at which one can move between the states is determined by individual modes transportation. There are a lot of ways to get to San Jose and each pathway (reaction diagram) has an associated free energy profile, but all of them connect A to B. Crawl, walk, run, fly or teleport we still move between the same two cities. The 2 dimensional depiction of bistability is likely an over simplification of the multifaceted “real world”, but I opt for graphical simplicity and encourage the reader to visualize the multidimensional version of the diagram.
The depiction of the biological scales emphasizes the nestedness of the more complex levels. That is, each system is a part of the next more complex and thereby included in all others. An analogy might be found in this symbol. Specifically, the small pieces of the opposing part of the duality that each contains, imagined as a multiplicity, where each level contains a piece of all “lesser” levels. Nesting preserves the value of the less complex systems because each has critical functions within the more complex levels. For example, molecular hormones operate within the context of the multicellular, multiorgan human physiology. Likewise, the individual biological entity that bears the germline DNA is not demeaned by the more complex structures within which in which it lives. Each of us, like any other animal or plant, is simultaneously whole and part. That we can conceive of the situation and comment upon it is (part of) what makes us human. But that particular digression is beyond the scope of this installment.
The scale diagram implies a systems science approach. A sense of the systems perspective is provided by considering how many molecules comprise any given level of organization. In order to manifest the entire biome of the planet and to maintain it over time, all of those molecules are organized. One way these are organized, or coordinated, is by physically nesting them into cells, tissues, organs, individuals, etc. How does the whole become greater than the sum of its parts? By organizing of course, only by coordinated interaction between the parts will the little bit extra that characterizes the whole be manifest. Non-interaction is so sum of the parts! Time is also a biological scale, in the evolutionary sense if no other, and is also nested. More visually, the concept may be encompassed by the full circles within opposing semi-circles the Yin Yang,
but rendered in multiple dimensions and shades of grey. Each full circle a remnant of the closed levels within the open level beyond which no one can yet conceive of something larger. What can hold the universe? The tails, too, where light dissolves into dark and shadow melds with light, is something like the point at the top of the scale diagram where all the (sub)systems intersect. After all, Einstein, matter is energy in the end.

What Do You Think?
6 Responses to 'Transition'
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.




Mark [New]
Wednesday, 30 Mar, 2011 at 3:12 pm
More off topic: 3d Yin Yang symbols need gray (or something) to work. Two semicircles meeting at one point forms a solid division between the Yin and the Yang, but two half-spheres meeting at one point do not.
You can do this, though.
Mark [New]
Wednesday, 30 Mar, 2011 at 3:24 pm
More to the point, I find myself thinking of minima and maxima points quite a lot when contemplating ideal societies. These minimas are stable points like in your diagrams, only in far more than two dimensions.
It is easy to imagine ideal societies. If given infinite magical powers, but only for a moment in time, I can think of a variety of wonderful societies I’d want to live in. But I’m not sure any of them would last longer than a generation, as human nature and interactions take their course.
We know historically of many societies that had the stability to last, but most all of them were not good. The best seems to be democratic capitalism, but even that 1) sucks and 2) I’m no longer sure is actually that stable. Our society is neither all that democratic, obviously. Nor is our society very capitalistic in the true (or at least, ideal), non-aristocratic, non-monopolistic concept of the term.
It seems we are searching for a better and more stable point. A point in a “volcano” crater, both higher (better) and deeper (more stable) than what we’ve currently got.
At the moment, it seem social democracy has the best chance.
Wednesday, 30 Mar, 2011 at 4:14 pm
Certainly, application of most of the concepts I discuss beyond the molecular and cellular levels where they are imagined by their developers is speculative at best. Or, stretching the analogy, as William might attest.
In my opinion, the multi-dimensionality of the diagrams is apparent even at the most basic levels. What 21st century humans interpret as “reality” has a very fractal nature. The whole concept of “nestedness” implies this, I think, but in a physical way. Each of us is a physical rendition of the scale diagram (to the extent that one believes they have a physical presence) because (quantum energies), molecules, cells, tissues, and organs are actually nested within our bodies.
William Timberman [New]
Wednesday, 30 Mar, 2011 at 6:32 pm
Ah, our old pal entropy. The biggest problem of politics, to use a literary metaphor, rather than a scientific one, is the problem of herding cats, those grand masters of stochastic interaction.
People are vastly different from one another, and yet are linked. Given time and the willingness to pay attention, we can understand one another as individuals perfectly well — as well as we understand ourselves, at any rate. Group dynamics are more difficult to master — the family, the clan, the workgroup. Politics is several orders of magnitude more difficult still, largely because of the adverse signal to noise ratio.
This may seem off the wall, but I’ve always thought that love, as in all we need is love, is the key to any successful politics, in that it encourages us to forebear long enough to see, and to act upon, the real patterns of human interaction, which are much more fluid than our ideologies admit.
Once, in Berkeley, many years ago, I managed to squeeze into a packed lecture hall for a talk by Herbert Marcuse. It was one of those unassuming, but life-changing events for me.
He began something like this (I paraphrase, given that the memory is 40+ years old):
I was still thinking about this ten years later, and even today it governs far more of my personal approach to politics than it would be fashionable to admit. I guess that makes me an original DFH. It also makes me an unrepentant one, which no doubt would drive all the ward-heelers as crazy as it used to do, if I still had any business with them.
Wednesday, 30 Mar, 2011 at 7:51 pm
One of the ways people are linked is biologically, but of course, that one way is, itself, multifaceted and complex. The web of life arcing through time embraces every living thing, not just people. Whether social connections extend beyond biology is another issue, perhaps.
We have yet to begin talking about what it is that sets humans apart from the other animals. Libraries and history books are a couple, but rational engineering and negotiated political solutions are two more.
Pingback: Stochasticism Part 2: Biological Amplification at Merge Left (Edit)