Wednesday, December 10, 2014

Meet The Normal Guy Who Will Quit His Job And Retire At 32


Follow Business Insider: 
brandon retire earlyLearnVest
In our Money Mic series, we hand over the podium to people with controversial views about money. These are their views, not ours, but we welcome your responses.
We first wrote about Brandon’s investing strategy in our story “Investing for Two: How Real Couples Save for Their Futures.” Today, he explains why, weary of the rat race, he’s decided to sock away enough savings so that he can stop working for good … in his early thirties. 
Money is emotional and sensitive, so please respect that this is just one man’s story.
Later this year, at the age of 32, I plan to quit my full-time job as a software developer and don’t intend to look for another one.
By then, I expect my portfolio will be large enough to fund my essential expenses for at least the next 30 years, if not indefinitely, so that getting another 9-to-5 job becomes an option rather than a necessity.
You may wonder if I have some magic ability for picking Powerball numbers, or if I was born with a silver spoon in my mouth. Neither is the case. I’ve built my nest egg simply by watching my spending, and investing as much of my paycheck as I can. I am currently investing over 70% — and no, that’s not a typo — of my after-tax income into my retirement and taxable investment accounts.
All this super saving is so I can leave the rat race at an age when many people are just starting to ramp up their careers. Although this has been my primary financial focus over the past few years, it wasn’t always my goal.

TPS Reports? I’d Rather Travel the World

When I graduated from college with a degree in computer science, I was excited to work hard and build a successful programming career in Newbury, Vt., where I live with my wife, Jill. I thought maybe I’d even become wealthy along the way.
But then reality kicked in, and my life seemed to become one endless scene from “Office Space” after another. After a few years of pointless meetings, inept managers, and one too many TPS reports, the enthusiasm I once had was gone, and the thought of spending the next 30-plus years doing the same thing was depressing to me.
I felt trapped because I had worked hard to get my degree and establish my career. I didn’t feel as if I could just quit and start something new. I also didn’t want to trade my high five-figure salary for a lower one, so I continued, albeit unhappily, on the same career trajectory.
Rather than use my salary to buy frivolous material things, however, I used my money to fund sabbaticals for several months at a time that enabled Jill and I to see the world. Jill is from Scotland, so every five years or so we would quit our jobs — she works as an optometrist — and spend several months traveling in Europe, as well as other countries. Because the market is strong for software developers, I never worried about finding another job, and often whichever company I worked with last would ask me to consult for them until I found my next gig.
One particular three-month stretch in China and traveling through Tibet and Nepal made me realize just how rich most Americans already are, myself included.This further drove home the realization that I didn’t need to accumulate the things my peers had, like big houses and fancy cars.
Taking these sabbaticals was what I saw value in — but it wasn’t until around 2011, when I stumbled across a website called Early Retirement Extreme, that I realized I could work hard for five to ten years to make those periodic trips more of a permanent fixture. I was already a pretty good saver, but what I read on the site encouraged me to ramp it up even more. All I would need to do to retire early was to save and invest until my portfolio reached at least 25 times my annual expenses.
Based on historical data, my thinking was that those investments should return an inflation-adjusted average of 5% every year. I calculated that I would only need to withdraw, at most, 4% every year to cover my estimated essential expenses — more on those in a minute — which means my portfolio should have a high likelihood of never running out of money.

Fast-Tracking Financial Independence

Once I realized that obtaining this level of financial independence was possible, I began researching how to get myself there as quickly as possible.
The best strategy for me, both from a savings and tax perspective, was to max out tax-advantaged retirement accounts, including a 401(a), a 403(b) — both are types of defined-contribution plans offered by my employer — and a Health Savings Account. I max out all of these accounts each year, and get a 5% match on my 401(a). I also max out my Roth IRA, and anything that’s left over, after expenses, goes into my taxable investment account.
As far as my portfolio strategy goes, I prefer passive investing — putting my money into investments like mutual funds or ETFs that track an index, rather than actively trading in an effort to time the market. Studies have shown that, over the long term, passive investing beats out active investing. I invest the majority of my money in diversified index funds. My current allocation consists of 75% U.S. stocks, 10% international stocks, 10% real estate investment trusts, and 5% cash. I’ll likely transition into bonds as I get older but I’m happy to take on more risk now.
Since I’ll most likely need to access my retirement money prior to standard retirement age, I also plan to build a Roth IRA conversion ladder. IRS rules allow you to roll over 401(k)s, Traditional IRAs and 403(b) accounts into a Roth IRA and withdraw those conversions five years later, penalty free. To build a consistent income stream after I leave my job, I plan to roll over amounts from my retirement accounts equal to my annual expenses every year, starting next year. Five years from the time I make my first rollover, I’ll be able to take out that amount annually without paying any early-withdrawal penalties.

Living Simply Is Half the Battle

My ability to walk away from full-time employment isn’t based solely on stashing away so much of my income. In fact, I give most of the credit to the low expenses my wife and I are able to maintain.
If you met Jill and I on the street, you wouldn’t think we were any different than any other American couple — except we’re really good at living simply and frugally. We don’t have car payments because we bought our used cars with cash. We live in a modest-sized house with a very reasonable $600 per month mortgage payment. We have a Netflix subscription instead of an expensive cable package, and while we eat out occasionally, we prefer to cook our meals at home. All told, we’re able to live comfortably on $2,200 a month.
We intend to shave our costs even further after I leave my job by spending parts of the year living in low-cost countries like Thailand and Guatemala. We enjoy traveling and experiencing new cultures, so we’d get to see the world and live on less at the same time. And luckily, I’ve become quite good at hacking travel by using miles, rewards points and premium status.

What Retirement Means to Me

Gaining this level of financial independence so early in life isn’t something many people think is possible, so I get a lot of confused and worried looks. Even Jill didn’t completely get it right away. It was only once she visualized what life could be like with fewer work commitments that she started to understand why I wanted to go down this path.
She still loves her job and plans to continue working as a locum optometrist (an optometrist who fills in at other people’s practices) when we’re living in the States or in Scotland, but will take off for a few months every year so we can live for periods in other countries. Because we largely keep our finances separate, she still plans to cover her half of our expenses with her income, while my savings will cover my half.
As far as what life will be like in “retirement” for me, I don’t plan to spend the rest of my life sitting on a beach. I do want to make a meaningful contribution to the world, so I will continue working part time on my own projects, including web applications, mobile applications and writing projects — including the blog I started about my journey to financial independence, madfientist.com — and will use the money I earn to fund my discretionary spending.
I also plan to write music, learn new languages while living abroad, spend more quality time with loved ones and develop new skills through volunteer work. The possibilities are endless, and having the time to explore those — rather than stay chained to a career that no longer excites me — is worth saving for.
Will I ever get a real job again? Probably not, but I can’t say for sure. If my wife and I decide to start a family, or if the market experiences turbulence the way it did in 2008 to 2009, I may go back to work for a few years to increase my balances a bit more.

Tips for Aspiring Early Retirees

If you’re interested in leaving the daily grind early, I’d start with really picturing your life after leaving work. The more you can visualize what your perfect life will be like, the easier it will be to make “sacrifices” along the way. I put “sacrifices” in quotes because most of the lifestyle changes you make to achieve this goal will probably make you happier anyway. I know that’s been the case for me.
I’d also suggest closely scrutinizing your expenses. You might be paying for things that don’t make your life better, so you should cut those out immediately. For each expense, ask yourself: “If giving this up meant I could quit my job tomorrow, would I?” If you answer yes, that expense isn’t as important to you as your financial freedom, so eliminate it from your life, or find a free or cheaper alternative.
In his famous novel “Walden,” Henry David Thoreau states, “Superfluous wealth can buy superfluities only. Money is not required to buy one necessary of the soul.” These words rang true to me on my journey to financial independence, and while I still may not know exactly what my soul requires to be completely happy and content, I look forward to having the time and the freedom to find out.
This story was originally published by LearnVest.


Read more: http://www.learnvest.com/2014/04/im-getting-ready-to-retire-in-my-30s/#ixzz3LYZKZoEz

4 Study Hacks That Will Help You Succeed At MIT, Cal Tech, And Other Elite Schools


Barbara Schloss, mit studentCourtesy of Barbara SchlossJust because you're smart doesn't mean you know how to learn.
As advances in cognitive science continue to point out, you need more than time and effort to become a great learner. 
You have to give your days structure, exploit the way your memory works, and pay close attention to what you do and don't know. 
Unsurprisingly, top students at top schools — MIT, Cal Tech, and the like — have some of the most effective study techniques.
Here are a few of their tips, care of a recent Quora thread

They track their understanding of the material. 

Instead of relying on what they think they know, the best students take inventory of their knowledge. 
"I saw a lot of people thought that they understood what was going on in a class, but could easily get tripped up by the basics even after the class had moved onto more advanced topics," says David Koh, who graduated from MIT in 2011. "Having a thorough understanding of the basics is particularly key, because most advanced material is really just an extension of the basics." 
This can be done in lots of ways. Ask your instructor for old quizzes to check your understanding against, or, better yet, help other people study. Koh says that this will reveal the gaps in your own knowledge. 

They take better notes. 

One key to his success: Instead of just writing notes that summarized what he's learned, he structures his notes to promote the retention of facts
To do that, he makes written notes that function like flash cards. 
He explains:
I write them in a form where I separate a "stimulus" from a "response." The stimulus are cues or questions (think: front side of flashcard), while the response is the answer to the cue (think: back of flashcard). But the stimuli are to the left of a margin, while the responses are to the right.
And voila, you can quiz yourself on your understanding. Just lay a sheet of paper over the "back of the flash card." 

They take care of their bodies. 

Ming Jack Pao graduated from Johns Hopkins at 20 years old.
One thing he wishes he would have learned earlier: taking care of himself. 
"I really, really abused my body when I was younger and am still paying a price for it now," he says. "It took me years to get healthier, and it's more than worth it." 
The physical health helps his mental performance.
"I can concentrate significantly better now than before and just everything about my life and body works better," he says. 

They put structure into their schedules. 

Jessica Su, who graduated from Cal Tech in 2013, emphasizes the simple things that give your week structure. 
For one, she always got eight to nine hours of sleep a night. 
"This allows me to go to class well-rested and do my problem sets with greater efficiency," she says.
And just as rigorously, she always went to class.
"Always go to class," she writes. "Even if the lectures are not useful, they serve to structure my day. Having lots of free time creates diminishing returns for me — three hours isn't too different from four hours, but having one block of three hours and one block of one hour is significantly better." 

Join The Discussion

 


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/mit-cal-tech-student-study-hacks-2014-12#ixzz3LVPrjztZ

Monday, December 8, 2014

This Physicist Has A Groundbreaking Idea About Why Life Exists


aKatherine Taylor for Quanta MagazineJeremy England, a 31-year-old physicist at MIT, thinks he has found the underlying physics driving the origin and evolution of life.
Why does life exist?
Popular hypotheses credit a primordial soup, a bolt of lightning and a colossal stroke of luck.
But if a provocative new theory is correct, luck may have little to do with it. Instead, according to the physicist proposing the idea, the origin and subsequent evolution of life follow from the fundamental laws of nature and “should be as unsurprising as rocks rolling downhill.”
From the standpoint of physics, there is one essential difference between living things and inanimate clumps of carbon atoms: The former tend to be much better at capturing energy from their environment and dissipating that energy as heat. 
Jeremy England, a 31-year-old assistant professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has derived a mathematical formula that he believes explains this capacity. The formula, based on established physics, indicates that when a group of atoms is driven by an external source of energy (like the sun or chemical fuel) and surrounded by a heat bath (like the ocean or atmosphere), it will often gradually restructure itself in order to dissipate increasingly more energy. This could mean that under certain conditions, matter inexorably acquires the key physical attribute associated with life.
Screen Shot 2014 12 08 at 4.28.31 PMKristian PetersCells from the moss Plagiomnium affine with visible chloroplasts, organelles that conduct photosynthesis by capturing sunlight.
“You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant,” England said.
England’s theory is meant to underlie, rather than replace, Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection, which provides a powerful description of life at the level of genes and populations. “I am certainly not saying that Darwinian ideas are wrong,” he explained. “On the contrary, I am just saying that from the perspective of the physics, you might call Darwinian evolution a special case of a more general phenomenon.”
His idea, detailed in a paper and further elaborated in a talk he is delivering at universities around the world, has sparked controversy among his colleagues, who see it as either tenuous or a potential breakthrough, or both.
England has taken “a very brave and very important step,” said Alexander Grosberg, a professor of physics at New York University who has followed England’s work since its early stages. The “big hope” is that he has identified the underlying physical principle driving the origin and evolution of life, Grosberg said.
“Jeremy is just about the brightest young scientist I ever came across,” said Attila Szabo, a biophysicist in the Laboratory of Chemical Physics at the National Institutes of Health who corresponded with England about his theory after meeting him at a conference. “I was struck by the originality of the ideas.”
Others, such as Eugene Shakhnovich, a professor of chemistry, chemical biology and biophysics at Harvard University, are not convinced. “Jeremy’s ideas are interesting and potentially promising, but at this point are extremely speculative, especially as applied to life phenomena,” Shakhnovich said.
England’s theoretical results are generally considered valid. It is his interpretation — that his formula represents the driving force behind a class of phenomena in nature that includes life — that remains unproven. But already, there are ideas about how to test that interpretation in the lab.
“He’s trying something radically different,” said Mara Prentiss, a professor of physics at Harvard who is contemplating such an experiment after learning about England’s work. “As an organizing lens, I think he has a fabulous idea. Right or wrong, it’s going to be very much worth the investigation.”
Screen Shot 2014 12 08 at 4.30.03 PMCourtesy of Jeremy EnglandA computer simulation by Jeremy England and colleagues shows a system of particles confined inside a viscous fluid in which the turquoise particles are driven by an oscillating force. Over time (from top to bottom), the force triggers the formation of more bonds among the particles.
At the heart of England’s idea is the second law of thermodynamics, also known as the law of increasing entropy or the “arrow of time.” Hot things cool down, gas diffuses through air, eggs scramble but never spontaneously unscramble; in short, energy tends to disperse or spread out as time progresses. Entropy is a measure of this tendency, quantifying how dispersed the energy is among the particles in a system, and how diffuse those particles are throughout space. It increases as a simple matter of probability: There are more ways for energy to be spread out than for it to be concentrated.
Thus, as particles in a system move around and interact, they will, through sheer chance, tend to adopt configurations in which the energy is spread out. Eventually, the system arrives at a state of maximum entropy called “thermodynamic equilibrium,” in which energy is uniformly distributed. A cup of coffee and the room it sits in become the same temperature, for example.
As long as the cup and the room are left alone, this process is irreversible. The coffee never spontaneously heats up again because the odds are overwhelmingly stacked against so much of the room’s energy randomly concentrating in its atoms.
Although entropy must increase over time in an isolated or “closed” system, an “open” system can keep its entropy low — that is, divide energy unevenly among its atoms — by greatly increasing the entropy of its surroundings. In his influential 1944 monograph “What Is Life?” the eminent quantum physicist Erwin Schrödinger argued that this is what living things must do. A plant, for example, absorbs extremely energetic sunlight, uses it to build sugars, and ejects infrared light, a much less concentrated form of energy. The overall entropy of the universe increases during photosynthesis as the sunlight dissipates, even as the plant prevents itself from decaying by maintaining an orderly internal structure.
Life does not violate the second law of thermodynamics, but until recently, physicists were unable to use thermodynamics to explain why it should arise in the first place. In Schrödinger’s day, they could solve the equations of thermodynamics only for closed systems in equilibrium. In the 1960s, the Belgian physicist Ilya Prigogine made progress on predicting the behavior of open systems weakly driven by external energy sources (for which he won the 1977 Nobel Prize in chemistry). But the behavior of systems that are far from equilibrium, which are connected to the outside environment and strongly driven by external sources of energy, could not be predicted.
This situation changed in the late 1990s, due primarily to the work of Chris Jarzynski, now at the University of Maryland, and Gavin Crooks, now at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Jarzynski and Crooks showed that the entropy produced by a thermodynamic process, such as the cooling of a cup of coffee, corresponds to a simple ratio: the probability that the atoms will undergo that process divided by their probability of undergoing the reverse process (that is, spontaneously interacting in such a way that the coffee warms up). As entropy production increases, so does this ratio: A system’s behavior becomes more and more “irreversible.” The simple yet rigorous formula could in principle be applied to any thermodynamic process, no matter how fast or far from equilibrium. “Our understanding of far-from-equilibrium statistical mechanics greatly improved,” Grosberg said. England, who is trained in both biochemistry and physics, started his own lab at MIT two years ago and decided to apply the new knowledge of statistical physics to biology.
Using Jarzynski and Crooks’ formulation, he derived a generalization of the second law of thermodynamics that holds for systems of particles with certain characteristics: The systems are strongly driven by an external energy source such as an electromagnetic wave, and they can dump heat into a surrounding bath. This class of systems includes all living things. England then determined how such systems tend to evolve over time as they increase their irreversibility. “We can show very simply from the formula that the more likely evolutionary outcomes are going to be the ones that absorbed and dissipated more energy from the environment’s external drives on the way to getting there,” he said. The finding makes intuitive sense: Particles tend to dissipate more energy when they resonate with a driving force, or move in the direction it is pushing them, and they are more likely to move in that direction than any other at any given moment.
“This means clumps of atoms surrounded by a bath at some temperature, like the atmosphere or the ocean, should tend over time to arrange themselves to resonate better and better with the sources of mechanical, electromagnetic or chemical work in their environments,” England explained.
Screen Shot 2014 12 08 at 4.31.10 PMCourtesy of Michael Brenner/Proceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSelf-Replicating Sphere Clusters: According to new research at Harvard, coating the surfaces of microspheres can cause them to spontaneously assemble into a chosen structure, such as a polytetrahedron (red), which then triggers nearby spheres into forming an identical structure.
Self-replication (or reproduction, in biological terms), the process that drives the evolution of life on Earth, is one such mechanism by which a system might dissipate an increasing amount of energy over time.
As England put it, “A great way of dissipating more is to make more copies of yourself.”
In a September paper in the Journal of Chemical Physics, he reported the theoretical minimum amount of dissipation that can occur during the self-replication of RNA molecules and bacterial cells, and showed that it is very close to the actual amounts these systems dissipate when replicating.
He also showed that RNA, the nucleic acid that many scientists believe served as the precursor to DNA-based life, is a particularly cheap building material. Once RNA arose, he argues, its “Darwinian takeover” was perhaps not surprising.
The chemistry of the primordial soup, random mutations, geography, catastrophic events and countless other factors have contributed to the fine details of Earth’s diverse flora and fauna. But according to England’s theory, the underlying principle driving the whole process is dissipation-driven adaptation of matter.
This principle would apply to inanimate matter as well. “It is very tempting to speculate about what phenomena in nature we can now fit under this big tent of dissipation-driven adaptive organization,” England said. “Many examples could just be right under our nose, but because we haven’t been looking for them we haven’t noticed them.”
Scientists have already observed self-replication in nonliving systems. According to new research led by Philip Marcus of the University of California, Berkeley, and reported in Physical Review Letters in August, vortices in turbulent fluids spontaneously replicate themselves by drawing energy from shear in the surrounding fluid. And in a paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Michael Brenner, a professor of applied mathematics and physics at Harvard, and his collaborators present theoretical models and simulations of microstructures that self-replicate. These clusters of specially coated microspheres dissipate energy by roping nearby spheres into forming identical clusters. “This connects very much to what Jeremy is saying,” Brenner said.
Besides self-replication, greater structural organization is another means by which strongly driven systems ramp up their ability to dissipate energy. A plant, for example, is much better at capturing and routing solar energy through itself than an unstructured heap of carbon atoms. Thus, England argues that under certain conditions, matter will spontaneously self-organize. This tendency could account for the internal order of living things and of many inanimate structures as well. “Snowflakes, sand dunes and turbulent vortices all have in common that they are strikingly patterned structures that emerge in many-particle systems driven by some dissipative process,” he said. Condensation, wind and viscous drag are the relevant processes in these particular cases.
“He is making me think that the distinction between living and nonliving matter is not sharp,” said Carl Franck, a biological physicist at Cornell University, in an email. “I’m particularly impressed by this notion when one considers systems as small as chemical circuits involving a few biomolecules.”
Screen Shot 2014 12 08 at 4.32.30 PMWilson BentleyIf a new theory is correct, the same physics it identifies as responsible for the origin of living things could explain the formation of many other patterned structures in nature. Snowflakes, sand dunes and self-replicating vortices in the protoplanetary disk may all be examples of dissipation-driven adaptation.
England’s bold idea will likely face close scrutiny in the coming years.

He is currently running computer simulations to test his theory that systems of particles adapt their structures to become better at dissipating energy. The next step will be to run experiments on living systems.
Prentiss, who runs an experimental biophysics lab at Harvard, says England’s theory could be tested by comparing cells with different mutations and looking for a correlation between the amount of energy the cells dissipate and their replication rates.
“One has to be careful because any mutation might do many things,” she said. “But if one kept doing many of these experiments on different systems and if [dissipation and replication success] are indeed correlated, that would suggest this is the correct organizing principle.”
Brenner said he hopes to connect England’s theory to his own microsphere constructions and determine whether the theory correctly predicts which self-replication and self-assembly processes can occur — “a fundamental question in science,” he said.
Having an overarching principle of life and evolution would give researchers a broader perspective on the emergence of structure and function in living things, many of the researchers said. “Natural selection doesn’t explain certain characteristics,” said Ard Louis, a biophysicist at Oxford University, in an email. These characteristics include a heritable change to gene expression called methylation, increases in complexity in the absence of natural selection, and certain molecular changes Louis has recently studied.
If England’s approach stands up to more testing, it could further liberate biologists from seeking a Darwinian explanation for every adaptation and allow them to think more generally in terms of dissipation-driven organization. They might find, for example, that “the reason that an organism shows characteristic X rather than Y may not be because X is more fit than Y, but because physical constraints make it easier for X to evolve than for Y to evolve,” Louis said.
“People often get stuck in thinking about individual problems,” Prentiss said.  Whether or not England’s ideas turn out to be exactly right, she said, “thinking more broadly is where many scientific breakthroughs are made.”
Emily Singer contributed reporting.
This article originally appeared at Quanta Magazine. Copyright 2014. Follow Quanta Magazine on Twitter.

Join The Discussion

 

Comments 

on Dec 8, 5:03 PM said:
42
on Dec 8, 5:03 PM said:
42
on Dec 8, 5:23 PM said:
First step, figure out how the massive oceans of water came to planet earth, I am certain if we figure that out the rest will all fall into place.
h2o 
on Dec 8, 5:29 PM said:
@ROBOT58
comets and gravity pulling in hydrogen and oxygen.
Bogus 
on Dec 8, 5:38 PM said:
@h2o
Odd there are no oceans on Mars. I guess all those comets missed that planet and hit earth instead.
h20 
on Dec 8, 6:08 PM said:
@Bogus
Do a little research. Fact, Mars had water. It boiled away because didn't have a magnetic field to protect it like Earth.
Bogus 
on Dec 8, 6:42 PM said:
@h20
So let me understand. Mars once had oceans like Earth presently has, but because Mars doesn't have a magnetic field all those Martian oceans boiled away.

Hmmmm, Mars must have been hit by millions of comets then, not only to create the oceans, but to keep up with the boil-off rate. I wonder if you could tell us, when was the last comet to hit Mars?

"There are some ideas so preposterous that only an intellectual will believe them." . - Malcolm Muggeridge
Nom de plume 
on Dec 8, 7:24 PM said:
@Bogus
Nothing much has changed in the past 6 thousand years. Bow low O sun worshipers!
http://fcit.usf.edu/florida/photos/native/lemoyne/lemoyne8/photos/lemoy804.jpg
You need an education 
on Dec 8, 7:59 PM said:
@Bogus
Take astronomy, biology, physics and chemistry 101 at your local community college. You clearly have never taken any of them.
hammerman 
on Dec 8, 8:01 PM said:
@Bogus
ugh last time I checked the gravity on mars and the element make up of mars as well as the placement as well as the size and well as rotation is much different than earth. That's like saying if a throw a rock at a baby it will hurt it; so throwing a rock at tank will do equal damage.''

Because an act happens on one planet doesn't mean that same act on a different planet will have the same outcome. Physics 101

Comets hit Jupiter every minute for as long as we have known it's existence and it's made of hydrogen and helium

Life came from an insane # of trial and errors and this is the outcome. Nothing more to it.

An analogy is spilling water down a rock with many ridges and asking one at landing place of where the water finally ended how it got there.
MrPeabody 
on Dec 8, 5:31 PM said:
The next step would be to explain how living things delay their internal chemical reactions, not simply reacting to all the available reagent as quickly as permitted, and then to explain how it is that living things take in electrically neutral material from their environment, processing to retain a net positive charge within the organism and expelling electrically negative waste.
A Random German 
on Dec 8, 7:18 PM said:
@MrPeabody
That appears to be inherently false to me. We are not exhausting negative waste. What we exhaust is just a mixture of chemicals that in broad understanding is acidy. And if you remember correctly acidy is just neutral water with more H+ than OH-. We can also live non-acid like eating lots of fruits and stuff but this is not favorable since it is more like a baby lives with a drawback in certain development and draining away Ca2+ and stuff which our body uses to maintain acid level in certain organs meaning we suffer osterporosis and alike (yeah we can suffer that too from becoming to acidy). How I know it? I have an genetic allignment causing my body to inflame (allergic reactions) causing to much urinic acid among other stuff and yeah the cycle moves so abandon doctors I tested a lot of stuff and finally found a mixture to keep me away from medication and lead a healthy active life.

So no we do not expell electrical negative waste. By the way we have a charge and stuff but in the sum we get rid of what we take in. 100 years of adding more positive charged particals would result in interesting effects that keeps us away from functioning. We work the way we work since we self regulate. Currently most people eat to much resulting in acids requiring all sorts of adaptation that leads to illness (dont ask what I all had). People who draw in unprocessed raw fruite and vegetables will live some months to years in great shape and than fall apart or get fat (yeah fruit acid takes over and replaces urinic acid in the urin making the body store urinic acid which results in high amount of unhealthy body fat).
on Dec 8, 5:42 PM said:
of course , earth is the only planet has "life"--low life.
Ed Prout 
on Dec 8, 5:48 PM said:
Superb article. The marriage of various sciences such as chemistry, physics, biology is inevitable and will prove to be a watershed to new scientific discovery. Jeremy England is indeed on the right track by more closely exploring the homogenous nature of our universe and in finality, how everything is interconnected within the whole.
interconnected 
on Dec 8, 8:03 PM said:
@Ed Prout
"Interconnected within the whole" has been know philosophically in different cultures for thousands of years. Oddly enough Shamans, for example consider stones as a living entity.

Makes one wonder if knowledge can somehow be acquired in more weird ways than we acknowledge.
Not even wrong 
on Dec 8, 8:21 PM said:
@Ed Prout
"The marriage of various sciences such as chemistry, physics, biology is inevitable and will prove to be a watershed to new scientific discovery."

It's not science if you can't falsify it.

Jeremy England is indeed on the wrong track by more closely exploring the heterogeneous nature of our universe and in finality, how everything is messed up within the whole.
Jeremy England 
on Dec 8, 5:56 PM said:
Here's the lecture:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e91D5UAz-f4
And the first paper (just made public today):
http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.1875
Brian Wright 
on Dec 8, 6:07 PM said:
This is important science. It addresses a question I have grappled with since the age of 8.
Amit Das 
on Dec 8, 6:28 PM said:
>>“You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant,” England said.

damn, mr. England has answered the consciousness question too ;-)
A Random German 
on Dec 8, 7:20 PM said:
@Amit Das
Yeah thats the question. Is there a life force or not... what is it... uhhh :) Well lets answer the evolution question first then we might go for this ... if it holds any truth... at all.
Amit Das 
on Dec 8, 7:33 PM said:
@A Random German
>>Well lets answer the evolution question first
it will take f-o-r-e-v-e-r to answer the evolution question ;-)
pongidae rex 
on Dec 8, 6:33 PM said:
Since the 1950s, every generation has produced an individual who says basically the same thing about the origins of life (i.e. from a general systems perspective it is as inevitable as rocks rolling down a hill), but cloaks the statement in a slightly different technical or mathematical language. This is yet another submission to a long and interesting thread concerning the origins of life, but it does not represent any sort of breakthrough.
A Random German 
on Dec 8, 7:27 PM said:
@pongidae rex
First I thought.. bogus science. Then I got a glimps and over and over it was clear. The problem here is that our earth has many ways to absorb, proliferate and project energy between its parts and the outside. If you for example take away one element or change the whole composition there is nothing crawling in its oceans until the sun explodes.

So the question is, is this distribution and getting rid of energy is really a driving force? I like the statistical idea of recombination and the difference between the chance of combination and the chance of decomposition that forms a chemical system. There are states of certain stability and those states might involve many cycles. As more elements you add as the distribution ratio changes you get other systems.

If he can explain the way those system stabilize and evolve and fight something behind the rules making it a more simple more basic rule explaining other rules... fine. If not fine too.

The real question can only be answered in a simulation. And we might be decades or even centuries away from building systems allowing us to simulate that in more detail and accurateness.

Maybe one day we wont need to fly to each star because we know more exactly where to look at. Do some basic research, run simulation and check the chances of life... . But lets wait some more time... just some decades... .
Alligator Breath 
on Dec 8, 7:53 PM said:
@pongidae rex
If you say so. Oh, who in the fuck are you?
on Dec 8, 7:28 PM said:
So, is there life after death?
on Dec 8, 7:36 PM said:
Ah, come on: An explanation both more solid and
also easier to understand is easy.

First two background facts:

(1) The basic properties of elementary particles
ensure atoms of lots of quite different elements,
~100, not even counting isotopes.

(2) The basic chemistry of the atoms permits a lot
of really complicated chemistry, including its
special case biology. E.g., many of the energy
level differences are really tiny which says that
for the energy available, e.g., here on earth from
the sun, lots of different chemistry can happen.
E.g., sure, with hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon, we
can get CO2, CO, H2O, H2O2, but we can also get all
the hydrocarbons, with long chains, and much more.

Then with (1) and (2), one of the things that can
happen is chemical organizations that last and are
easy to notice (i.e., not just some goo). One way
the chemical organizations have of lasting is
reproduction.

Why reproduction? Because building an instance of
life took a LONG time so to have more instances it's
much easier (more likely) to reproduce the last
instance instead of starting again from just simple
chemistry.

Why sexual reproduction? Because as S. Ulam
explained, at each generation we get more variety
and, thus, more adaptability.

So, we get species -- complicated, lasting, easy to
notice, that reproduce, often sexually. That's what
we call life.

Why did it happen at all? Because due to the
complexity of the chemistry it can, and here on
earth it had ballpark 1/4th age of the universe to
happen.

Why is it so easy to notice? Because for any
relatively complex and lasting species on earth,
e.g., us, the life that is here on earth is easy to
notice because that life is so plentiful and stable.

Why plentiful? Because that's a byproduct of the
variety and ability of the basic chemistry to fill
niches. That is, once get one species, slightly
tweak the chemistry, e.g., with sexual reproduction,
mutations, etc., and get lots more species. Don't
be fooled: At the level of the chemistry, the
species are much more alike than we would guess.
That is, there are fewer major differences than meet
the eye.

Why stable? Because it takes so darned long
(compared with what we regard as 'stable') to get
any life going, ballpark 1/4th the age of the
universe, that we don't get really new, different,
and easy to notice forms of life springing up right
along. That is, we don't get a new species as easy
to notice as, say, kitty cats, as frequently as a
new snowflake or sunset picture (or a new
bacterium). Moreover, basically life on earth only
happened once, via DNA, and once it got going it
essentially out competed other alternatives. So,
the species that are left for us to observe are just
the lasting ones, and that is what we point to as
'life'.

Once life developed, why didn't it just stop there?
That is, why did we get life based on DNA which is
so astoundingly flexible? Apparently because the
chemistry has so much variety that the chemistry of
the first life could not resist change.

But the changes have always been just incremental
and opportunistic and not planned for the long term;
so life should be vulnerable, say, to some new
bacterium. So, how come we have had long term
results anyway? We are vulnerable, e.g., to the
Black Death, but the variety in the chemistry keeps
saving the day.

What if the chemistry let life develop faster? Then
there would still be some 'champion' forms of life,
but maybe they would get new competitors more
frequently until there was a champion species that
was so good that a better competitor was so rare
that the champion would last a long time. That is,
as life generates new champion species, we expect
that the time a species remains the champion gets
longer and longer. That is, keep having frequent
throne succession dramas until get a king that
lasts.

Why do we have species as capable as humans at all?
Humans descended from the first mammals, and 65
million years ago they were, say, just little mice.
It wasn't clear that in the next 65 million years
the little mice would have a species as advanced as
humans as descendants.

Why not some form of life more advanced than humans?
Wait another 65 million years and see. Or, guess
that now humans will 'advance' mostly via their
inventions.

Where will the 'ascent of life' stop? When it has
already understood and exploited the universe as
much as is effective for 'ascent'.

With the claim (a) that the basic chemistry has a
lot of variety and ability to fill niches and (b)
that on earth DNA out competed alternatives, on a
different planet there should be quite different
life, e.g., not based on DNA? Right.

Why is the universe, with its complicated chemistry,
etc., here at all? We don't know.
marabunta 
on Dec 8, 7:41 PM said:
So, we are born to fart. (dissipate heat)
World 
on Dec 8, 8:10 PM said:
Poppycock.
common1 
on Dec 8, 9:02 PM said:
Amazing. There is something both very humble and utterly amazing in this type of thinking -in giving this credit to inanimate matter.
In itself it's a great leap in thinking; we normally tend to expect something miraculous, something out of the ordinary at the core of a great change. If this theory holds out, it will surely be a breakthrough in many things.
Dan Green 
on Dec 8, 9:17 PM said:
"You start with a random clump of atoms, and if you shine light on it for long enough, it should not be so surprising that you get a plant.."

LOL!!
on Dec 8, 10:17 PM said:
Technically, this is a theory or model for abiogenesis, not evolution. If this is shown to be true, evolutionary theory would be unchanged. Why? Because evolutionary theory doesn't deal with the beginnings of life, it talks only about what happened after the first life formed that led to its increased diversity and complexity.
George_Clooney 
on Dec 8, 10:18 PM said:
so Weird Science was based on actual scientific theory???
Wow, just wow!!!
ha ha 
on Dec 8, 11:52 PM said:
Greetings Sun Creatures, I would like to know what do you celebrate every 11 years?


Read more: http://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/#ixzz3LNEL4Nxw