Protons, electrons, and neutrons are the base components of the elements. What makes each element different is the number of protons and electrons that it carries; neutrons, with the neutral charge, merely add bulk to the individual atom, and do not contribute to the total charge of the atom (which should remain neutral). What differentiates the different elements is how many total protons are contained in the nucleus, all of which are incredibly difficult to separate, thereby making it such that for all intents and purposes a molecule of any particular element will not be broken apart (even though we can through nuclear reactions in fusion and fission chambers, allowing us to even create new elements, all of which thus far being very unstable and radioactive).
The model of the atom developed by Niels Bohr suggests that the protons and neutrons comprise the dense(r) nucleus, and the electrons orbit around the nucleus in an outer matrix of sets of 8 (with the first set being composed of only 2 electrons), and any others not able to form a set of 8, known as the valence electrons (the electrons that can be readily bonded to other molecules, and which will actively try to do so).
Elements, and the molecular bonds that they form, can be individually seperated down to their separate molecules, and also reconfigured and joined, by a chemical manner. This usually has no effect on the individual elemental molecules other than perhaps the loss (or more commonly the sharing) of a few valence electrons. Chemical means can be as simple as introducing an appropriate solvent, heating, cooling, or even exposure to a reactive element, whereupon the exposure causes a reaction due to a ready availability of free flowing valence electrons in both base elements or molecular bonds as both attempt to form an outer ring of 8 valence electrons, even if this means sharing with another molecule.
The combination of certain particular elements (most notably carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen), form the basic building blocks for more complex materials such as lipids, proteins, and vitamins. Furthermore, those particles go on to form amino acids, cell walls, mitochondria, deoxyribonucleic acid, and other essential, larger components, which are just a few of the components of the individual cells that form the bones, organs, fluids, whole beings, and Voltron.
Now, in order to constitute living matter, does the subject itself need to carry a pulse? The individual protozoa may have some issue with that statement, as it itself isn’t reliant on a circulatory system as large as a humans is, or a central heart. There are perhaps even smaller forms of life than that, with virii being smaller than your typical cell, although whether we do classify them as living is still up for debate within the scientific community and are mostly viewed as alien life forms that exist solely to cease. My high school biology textbook defined living as something that currently is, or at one time has been alive, meaning that the plastic keyboard that I am typing on, made from plastics derived from oil, which was created from decaying plant and animal matter sitting under pressure in the earth’s crust for millions of years, is technically living.
Ultimately, what’s living or not is hard to declare in concrete. Western science may try to quantify the phenomena we witness on a daily basis, but clearly cannot explain everything, nor does it claim to give definitive answers; all scientific declarations are merely categorized as “theory,” as most cannot be proven, and established facts may change as new technologies are developed. Hell, Pluto’s no longer a planet, but merely a stray asteroid entering and exiting orbit around our sun, as a member of space debris surrounding our solar system known as the Kuiper Belt. And I sure as hell hope that the definition of “living” from my biology textbook is no longer used (not that it matters; the severely underfunded public school system will most probably need to use those old books for at least another 15 more years).
So how can I define a living matter on the basis I have set out; that we know close to nothing about everything? Unfortunately, I believe it remains situational, and a blanket statement cannot simply answer this question. However, you as the reader will want one, so here it is: anything that can be affected by anything enough to change, and which is capable of continuous change for as long as the subject can before it ultimately breaks down, should be considered living matter. And as answers go, leaving it nearly as confusing as the question itself means I must have answered it properly, to the best of my abilities.
No comments:
Post a Comment