_{gr}, leads to a very nice picture about metabolism predicting correct order of magnitude for the metabolic energy quantum .5 eV assignable to the proton of the hydrogen bond transformed to a long gravitational loop in Earth scale. This increases the energy of the proton and the increment serves as metabolic energy liberated when the loop reduces to an ordinary hydrogen bond in the transition h

_{gr}→ h.

A new metabolic energy quantum assignable to a dark electron Cooper pair is predicted and is assignable to a dark gravitational valence bond of metal ion X^{++} or two metal ions of type X^{+} forming a dark Cooper pair with hydrogen peroxide H_{2}O_{2}, which is reactive oxygen species (ROS). As in the case of the dark proton of the hydrogen bond, only an effective ion is in question since the Cooper pair is at the gravitational flux tube.

Note that the transformation of the proton of hydrogen bond and electrons of valence bonds provides a mechanism, which makes it possible to control for instance membrane potential which is expected to be central in the control of nerve pulse generation. DNA base pairs are connected by hydrogen bonds and the control mechanism might be at use also here.

An estimate for its maximal value is obtained by scaling the ordinary metabolic quantum by the ration m_{e}/m_{p} and equal to .36 meV. The miniature membrane potential has value about .4 meV which is 10 per cent larger.

In the first approximation, the estimate for the maximum of the metabolic energy quantum is as the gravitational binding energy at the surface of Earth. The estimate neglects the kinetic energy of the dark particle at the flux tube, which can be reduced as the flux tube reduces to ordinary valence bond or hydrogen bond.

According to the simple model, bio-chemistry would strongly depend on the local gravitational environment. Could this be used to kill the idea?

- For an object with mass M and radius R, the estimated maximal gravitational metabolic energy quantum E
_{max}is scaled up by factor is scaled up by a factor z= (M/M_{E})× (R_{E}/R). The values of z for Mars, Venus, and Moon are (.02,.86,.05). For Venus, which is called the sister planet of Earth, z is not too far from unity. Note that in the case of the Moon, the Earth's gravitational potential and therefore E_{max}associated with it would be by a factor z= R_{E}/R_{Moon}= .017 smaller than at the surface of Earth.Solar gravitational potential cannot come to rescue. At distance of AU (Earth's distance from Sun) the scaling factor of E

_{max}would be z= (M_{S}/M_{E}) (R_{E}/AU) =.014. The values E_{max}are typically few per cent of the desired value.The model in its simplest version would predict that terrestrial life is not possible on Mars and Moon. Humans have however successfully visited the Moon.

- Rather than giving up the idea, it is better to ask what goes wrong with the simplest model. It is assumed that dark charge at the gravitational bond does not possess any kinetic energy, which would increase the value of the metabolic energy quantum. This is of course an oversimplification and already the predicted slightly too low maximal value of the gravitational electronic metabolic energy quantum suggests that kinetic energy cannot be neglected.
The simplest model for the particle at gravitational valence bond is as a particle in a box with kinetic energies given by E

_{n}= n^{2}ℏ_{eff}^{2}/mL^{2}, L the length of the loop. If L scales like h_{eff}, the kinetic energy does not depend on h_{eff}. Therefore the scale of kinetic contribution can be estimated in a molecular length scale.Could the system adapt to a reduction of the maximal gravitational potential at the surface of Moon, Mars, or Venus by increasing the average value of n in the superposition of the standing waves having maximum at the top of the valence loop? The system would adapt by increasing the localization of the dark charge at the top of the loop. The reduction of the bond length would mean reduction of the superposition to n=0 wave so that the kinetic energy would be indeed liberated.

To sum up, the model survived the first killer test and led to a more precise formulation of the hypothesis. For a summary of earlier postings see Latest progress in TGD.

## No comments:

Post a Comment