If you look on the arXiv and in Nature journals there is a continuing stream of people claiming to observe superconductivity in some new material. There is a long history of this and it is worth considering the wise observations of Robert Cava , back in 1997, contained in a tutorial lecture. It would have been useful indeed in the early days of the field [cuprate superconductors] to have set up a "commission" to set some minimum standard of data quality and reproducibility for reporting new superconductors. An almost countless number of "false alarms" have been reported in the past decade, some truly spectacular. Koichi Kitazawa from the University of Tokyo coined these reports "USOs", for Unidentified Superconducting Objects , in a clever cross-cultural double entendre likening them to UFOs (Unidentified Flying Objects, which certainly are their equivalent in many ways) and to "lies" in the Japanese translation of USO. These have caused g
The Nature article you brought up the other day was the topic of a full-page highlight in the latest issue of New Scientist (the one with the "water is wierd" cover story).
ReplyDeleteYou're right that it sounds silly to say that the processes are "optimized" (re: earlier "Evolution does not optimise everything" post). There is no scope I can see for testing that the design of the photosynthetic apparatus is optimized, because no one really understands the underlying parameter space anyway. It really does sound like the logic is: the system was evolved, therefore it is optimimum!
Since we still can't engineer photosynthetic proteins that work as well as the ones occurring in _healthy_ organisms, the easiest way to explore the parameter space would be to compare across many species that live under similar conditions.
However, it seems that the appropriate spectroscopies are only applied to a handful of systems chosen for how easy they can be worked with. There aren't enough measurements on different organisms to make any statistically convincing arguments about optimization under this or that physiological condition regime...
To be honest, a lot of this is all pretty silly anyway.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with evolutionary optimization is that it is multiobjective, and that the _whole_ process often needs to be considered.
I note that everyone thinks we should be rivalling photosynthesis for efficiency in energy conversion, but NO ONE has suggested that we should be making cars that run on ATP.
INVITATION: to Undersyanding contemporary challenges
ReplyDeleteChange the world will become ‘possible only by changing the mechanicistic ideas that are the intellectual cause to devast the world during the industrial epoch.
Developments on cognitive change and implementation of no mechanic ideas are necessary to promote the framework for renewal of green economy will be discussed during the workshop to be held in the old A. Volta classroom at the University of Pavia on 24 SETT/10.
You are invited to attend.
View: http://www.edscuola.it/archivio/lre/3rd_Quantumbionet_Workshop.pdf
see also the explanatory memorandum in: http://www.wbabin.net/science/manzelli85.pdf
Paolo Manzelli: lre@unifi.it ; http://www.edscuola.it/lre.html