Re: Neutrality of matter; matter/anti-matter Re: origin of biological chirality?

On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 10:34:20 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:

On 24/08/2024 05:34, Pro Plyd wrote:

J. J. Lodder wrote:

Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote:
>

On Sun, 18 Aug 2024 00:08:49 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk>:
>

A study has found that lipid membranes can be selectively permeable to
one or the other sugar or amino acid enantiomer. The study used
membrane
models inspired by the membranes of modern organisms, so is not
directly
relevant to abiogenesis. However it still raises the possibility that
membrane selectivity was the source of chirality in biological
molecules. One possible issue is does this effect require chiral
membrane lipids; if so it only move the question of the origin of
chirality from sugars and amino acids to lipids.
>

ISTM that this is similar to the "matter/antimatter"
imbalance; neither is inherently more "natural" than the
other, but one became more prevalent. And IIRC, the m/am
imbalance is now assumed to be a matter of chance in the
original ratio. I could; of course, be mistaken in that;
it's been years since I followed it even casually.

>
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.04.23.590732v2.full.pdf

>
It isn't. The left-handed molecules can be converted into right-handed
ones, and vica versa, by taking them apart and reassembling them.
For matter/antimatter there is no such possibility.
Disassembling doesn't help,
because you cannot turn antiquarks into quarks.
Biological chirality is a triviality,
the matter/antimatter imbalance is a deep problem.
Where has all that antimatter gone?

 
Well, sorta agree with the analogy if one only
is considering the ratio. But also agree with the
observation about matter/anti-matter not being
able to be turned into their opposites. Just
happened to come across the following, another
mystery of sorts...
 
https://www.livescience.com/physics-mathematics/particle-physics/a-remarkable-conspiracy-why-is-matter-neutral-physicist-frank-close-explores-the-mystery-in-a-new-book
July 28, 2024
 
Since the discovery of the proton and the
electron in the 20th century, a mystery
persists at the core of the atom: Despite
belonging to completely different particle
families and being radically different in
size, the charges of these two particles
completely balance each other out — enabling
a universe where gravity dominates. But why?
...

>
Charge conservation is a consequence of "the global gauge invariance of
the electromagnetic field". From the existence of beta decay it can be
deduced that the charges on the proton and positron are the same (unless
you're willing to postulate that neutrinos are charged). From the
existence of electron-positron annihilation it can be deduced that the
charges on the electron and positron are equal in magnitude (unless
you're willing to postulate that photons are charged). From this we can
conclude that the charges on protons and electrons balance each other out.
>
So we are left to rephrase the question as "why are there equal numbers
of protons and electrons?" (Other charged particles decay to protons and
electrons (and photons and neutrinos) reasonably quickly.
>

This sounds to me like a close relative of the Anthropic
Principle, in that a universe in which charge, rather than
gravity, dominates would most likely be one in which life
couldn't exist. IOW, "I am, therefore charges balance."

>

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
 the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov