Slashdot Mirror
Quantum Coherence Found Fueling Photosynthesis
Gaygirlie writes "Ars Technica has posted an interesting article about new findings regarding quantum physics and photosynthesis. Their excerpt for the article: 'Physicists have found the strongest evidence yet of quantum effects fueling photosynthesis. Multiple experiments in recent years have suggested as much, but it has been hard to be sure. Quantum effects were clearly present in the light-harvesting antenna proteins of plant cells, but their precise role in processing incoming photons remained unclear.' Here's a little background info for those unaware of what coherence and quantum coherence are."
helped me, yet again, realize how little I understand quantum physics.
If quantum effects are real (as they demonstrably are), should it be a surprise that evolution made use of them?
This *might* be related to my wife's PhD research from several years back. Proton Coupled Electron Transfer. She's in a seminar right now, but when she's back at her desk, I'll past this by her to see if it relates. I could be totally wrong, but I know physicists approach the same kinds of things using different terms and models than chemists. Either way, PCET is an interesting effect that also happens in photosynthesis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCET
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
"hard to be sure"
Ha! Who would have guessed - uncertainty in quantum mechanics!
The reason Space Nutters keep saying we need to get off this rock is not because there is nothing left to explore, but mainly for two other reasons.
A) The "what if" scenarios that have the Earth being destroyed, if we aren't off the Earth by then humankind is done.
B) We will run out of room, and life extension is only going to make us run out of room quicker. We run out of room and WW1 and WW2 are going to look like small scuffles in comparison.
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
I've seen some comments stating that 'meh photoelectric effect nothing new to see here'. While it is true that emission/absorption is subject to quantum mechanics, specifically the photo-electric effect being governed by the work function hf = phi - eV, with hf = hc/lambda, phi being the work-function of the material, and eV being the 'escape velocity' of the electrons; the point being that energy emitted/absorbed must satisfy the above relationship, otherwise the photo-electric effect does not work.
What I believe this study is saying is that 'antennae' structures can act as a single quantum mechanical unit (the coherence) so that the incoming insolar radiation has more paths for electron conduction, since the transfer of energy/conduction of electrons is limited to the quantization by the work function, i.e., charge quantization limits the specific wavelengths/frequencies/energies of incoming photons that the plant can use to harvest energy, so in effect the evolution of these 'antennae' structures over time allows for a coherent systems that can act as single particles, with the different permutations of antennas allowing for vastly more permutations of allowed incoming wavelengths to satisfy the Schrodinger eqn (probably not dirac since these are most likely not relativistic interactions, at least the effects are negligible).
I deal more with relativity and QED/QCD, but that's my interpretation of the article.
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
The plants REALLY do have a chance against the Zombies. They can use their quantum energy blasters!!!!
RTF headline? And I thought people who didn't RTF summary were bad...
Space Nutters? GTFO of /.
Wrong thread 'mate
http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/12/07/1939237/ge-to-turn-worlds-biggest-civilian-plutonium-stockpile-into-electricity
This is something we tested by accident with our zero-light fodder system. We found a different pathway to stimulate, however, and do it via pulsing current through the nutrient solution at insanely high frequencies, using induction coils. Keeps the fodder grass nice and green.
This study will help us understand why this works.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Any evolved system will use all possible inputs to its fitness function, simply because there isn't any mechanism of focusing. Unlike human design, which is all about making known mechanisms work and all but those mechanism are ignored, and even actively avoided. When early researchers used solid-state electronics to make genetic algorithms, often the "solution" only worked on the specific hardware circuit it was learnt on (not supposedly identical copies), because it relied on otherwise-undefined race conditions in the silicon.
So don't be surprised if quantum effects are also used by your brain cells ... and by your anal sphincter.
what kinda efficiency we talking here?
"A) The "what if" scenarios that have the Earth being destroyed, if we aren't off the Earth by then humankind is done."
A similar scenario apparently killed the dinosaurs and allowed us to evolve. What right do we have to alter what will happen to this planet millions of years from now? If you can answer that, you can answer the same to life extension.
"B) We will run out of room, and life extension is only going to make us run out of room quicker. We run out of room and WW1 and WW2 are going to look like small scuffles in comparison."
There is no way that access to space will alter that equation. Whether or not we fill the planet with 80 year olds or 800 year olds, we'll have to solve these problems HERE, with REAL technologies, not fantasies. While I think your motivations are noble, you probably don't understand the magnitude of what you are proposing, and at any rate, there is nothing we can do in space, it's all based on idle daydreams of Space Age prophets, not real, practical technology.
How would putting the richest people on Earth in some space novelty change anything at all to your scenario?
We've already gone through a process of life extension, when we started understanding our bodies, washing our hands before helping women give birth, etc. We KNOW we can handle longer life spans. We also KNOW that human beings aren't meant for space.
I know, it sucks. But it's reality, and opposing reality by believing fantasies is at best a "fugue state", at worst a delusion and a religion.
If you think our technology has traveled a long way so far, consider still how far ahead evolution is. Things like this amaze me.
What right do we have to alter what will happen to this planet millions of years from now?
Wrong question. We have no rights in this regard.
But we do have a duty towards self-preservation.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
spooky action at a distance " (at the heart of quantum coherence) had never been further than his salad bowl...
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
A) The "what if" scenarios that have the Earth being destroyed, if we aren't off the Earth by then humankind is done.
So what? I mean if I have a chance to escape it then great by why does the long term survival of humanity really matter?
B) We will run out of room, and life extension is only going to make us run out of room quicker. We run out of room and WW1 and WW2 are going to look like small scuffles in comparison.
This is a more reasonable driver as it will cause great amounts of suffering that might be avoided and it is in our very nature to avoid suffering but still in the cosmic level scheme of things...so what?.
The way people often describe quantum decoherence is that an "observation" occurs that "collapses the wave function" and causes a superposition to converge to a single classical state. But I really think that's a misleading explanation. For one thing, surely the same phenomena occurred long before there were any intelligent observers, and secondly, scientists have observed things in states of quantum superposition WITHOUT causing decoherence.
The way think of it (as a total amateur in the area) is that rather than the wave function representing probabilities of states, it represents the degrees to which something is in all of those states. An "observation" is just like many other interactions with the environment that change those probabilities (or degrees of state).
Then there's the question of why subatomic particles (and some larger things) can be in states of quantum superposition, while larger things cannot. Penrose had a suggestion here. It's gravity. The more massive you are, the less your superimposed states can diverge from one another. Even a planet is in a state of superposition, but all of those states overlap so much relative to the dimensions of the object that you cannot distinguish them.
This highly mathematical discussion of photosynthesis is completely unnecessary. One need only understand what a dipole is, that water is an incredible dipole, and the capabilities of gels, in order to understand how it is that proteins structure the water. And from there, it is a short logical leap to understand how life extracts energy from electricity. Gerald Pollack presents all of this in terms of the very clearly-stated underlying physics of phase transitions in gels (and polymers) within his book "Gels, Cells and the Engines of Life". Mae Wan Ho also has much to say on this topic, adding that proton-jumping is possible (aka semiconduction in condensed matter physics) in this structured water.
Put simply: Proteins are covered in alternating charges designed specifically to accept water. Since water is such a strong dipole, it locks onto the protein in such a manner that a 3d lattice of alternating spins is achieved. This "structured water" behaves COMPLETELY DIFFERENTLY from unstructured water. This is an example of a phase transition in a gel. The body can structure and unstructure this water at will. And that simple capability can be used to actually explain every single one of the cell's functionalities.
Gerald Pollack's investigation into the mistakes in cell biology are revolutionary, and these findings will herald a major medical revolution once they become more widely known and studied. Slashdotters will be very interested in the quantum computing implications, as it all suggests quite directly that we can create custom "living" quantum computers -- life whose sole purpose is to behave as a computer. One need only fully understand all of the various biopolymers phase transitions, and piece them together into a functional system. In fact, this is exactly what happened "accidentally", when life formed.
Oh look, a 13 year old with delusions of Moon colonies and warp drives. Get an education, you fool.
You seem to be thinking of this in terms of next week. This is something that might not happen for another 200 years and I accept that.
By the time that we are moving significant amount of people into space we will have already colonized the easy parts of the ocean and made life in deserts sustainable. We will have to have had the technology to make it possible for us to live anywhere on the planet for us to even start to think about actual colonization of space.
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
A) The "what if" scenarios that have the Earth being destroyed, if we aren't off the Earth by then humankind is done.
So what? I mean if I have a chance to escape it then great by why does the long term survival of humanity really matter?
B) We will run out of room, and life extension is only going to make us run out of room quicker. We run out of room and WW1 and WW2 are going to look like small scuffles in comparison.
This is a more reasonable driver as it will cause great amounts of suffering that might be avoided and it is in our very nature to avoid suffering but still in the cosmic level scheme of things...so what?.
You will die someday so you might as well commit suicide.
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
A) The "what if" scenarios that have the Earth being destroyed, if we aren't off the Earth by then humankind is done.
The problem is that even if we have off-Earth colonies, humankind will still be in just as much danger as if we didn't. Consider the most likely scenarios:
1. Asteroid impact. Extensive damage to population and biosphere, but nothing that would render Earth less habitable than Mars. If we had the ability to colonise Mars, we'd certainly have the ability to build shelters on Earth. Result: no need to colonise Mars, just build greenhouses on Earth.
2. War, social unrest, mass insanity. Possible huge damage to Earth's population, depending on how crazy things get. However, space structures will be launched by nation-states and large commercial combines with ties to Earth and will therefore surely be part of the wider Sol system social fabric and will take part in the war. Possibly they'll be the first to be destroyed. For example, World War II began in the core European nations but quickly swept up all European colonies, and some of them such as North Africa and the Pacific became key battlegrounds. Also, the technologies which launched human spaceflight were the flip-side of Earth's worst weapons of mass destruction - the ICBM program. Result: little shelter from a war by extending human culture into space, and a lot of actual danger created by doing so.
3. Plague (including aliens and zombies). A fast spreading virus could conceivably take out most of the human population on-planet, but is unlikely to take out the biosphere or even all of the human population. Earth's survivors will still vastly outnumber any reasonably expected number of space colonists, and will still inherit a much more robust ecosystem than anything on Mars. Worse, any space colonisation program will involve constant resupply and then travel and trade between Earth and the colonies, which will be vectors for transmission of disease. Space colonies themselves will be tightly-packed and fragile, vastly more dangerous places in terms of plague. Result: no survival advantage in space colonies, in fact the colonies will probably die first.
4. Environmental collapse. We're certainly degrading Earth's environment, but space won't help us - all other planets are far worse environmentally than we could conceivably ever make Earth. All space colonies will need either constant resupply from Earth, or the environmental skills to be completely self-sustaining. And if we had those skills, we could just build greenhouses on Earth. Terraform Mars? Well, if we could terraform anywhere reliably, we could start doing it on Earth and fix all our environmental problems in one hit. Result: no environmental disadvantage to going into space, but no advantage either.
5. Ore depletion. Okay, so let's assume we fix the biosphere, but we're still running out of metals to make iPods. We can mine those in space, right? Well, yes and no. If we mine vast quantities of metal and introduce that into Earth's biosphere, that might mess up the biosphere (see 4). Moving asteroid-sized rocks around the system introduces huge military problems (see 2) as they'll be more dangerous than nukes. Space mining is also likely to be be more expensive than just recycling landfill, so where's the commercial advantage? Result: a commercial non-starter and a major military threat, best avoided really.
6. Supernova, red giant. The big one, a complete solar-system destroying event with no chance of sheltering in place. This is the only scenario where conceivably we could improve our chances by going into (interstellar) space. Problem is, to get out of range of Sol going boom we'd need to have either a generation ship going for several hundred years and having already solved the closed life support problem (see 1, 4), so this will be a long-term rather than short-term capability. Best estimates for Sol going boom are millions to billions of years, so again, this is not a pressing human need. Result: maybe worth look
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Addendum.
5a. Yes, okay, bringing asteroid-sized quantities of ore down-well to Earth is pointless, BUT we could use all that metal to build ships / O'Neill colonies in space! Forget planets, space is where it's at! No gravity, Okay, nice argument, but that assumes you have a reason for people to be IN those colonies to start with. Why are they there? To build more colonies of course! Well, why are the other colonies there? Um.... Unless it's more attractive to live in space than on Earth, people won't live in space. And the problem is, it ISN'T and WON'T be more attractive to live in space, because Earth has all the biosphere resources. Gravity and a magnetosphere also turn out to be essential for human health (see bone calcium loss and radiation sickness). For every one self-sustaining space biosphere, we could build a dozen much cheaper and safer and nicer gated arcologies on Earth (see 1, 4). Result: still no reason to be in space in the first place.
Granted, this equation changes in the far future given the sheer mass of the gas giants. If we could colonise those, there's a lot of raw materials. But that's on the order of centuries to millennia, and more likely the latter. It won't be a problem this generation faces, or even the next five. The human body simply isn't that adaptable, and even if we nuked the Earth a dozen times it would never be a nastier place to live than Jupiter's moons.
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
You say what humanity is meant for, then accuse readers of religion? Opposing the current state of existence is virtually the definition of "modern technology".
Addendum Two.
I believe the real reason the myth of the space colony still hangs around is that secretly (or not so secretly), otherwise intelligent people believe that the real problem with Earth isn't that we face resource shortages or biosphere degradation, but that those social and environmental problems are all really the fault of the ignorant swarming masses. And if we could only somehow get rid of the lower 99% of the Earth's population, we'd be fine.
The attraction of the space colony is that it's believed to be an elite, gated community which by virtue of its extreme expense and difficulty, would attract only a "high class of colonist" along the lines of the first generation of US astronauts: university PhD educated, military trained, logical scientific thinkers, in the peak of physical fitness. Given such a genetic pool of "the right stuff", the space myth goes, these super-demigods couldn't help but create a new Utopia of scientific wonders, even given the huge resource disadvantage they started from.
It's really an updated Atlas Shrugged idea: a Galt's Gulch in space populated only by Earth's Finest, who would sadly watch the dull, evil swarming masses back on Earth collapse into inevitable resource war and chaos, while the smart people up on the colony would of course just get on with making life better for everyone. As a political philosophy, it's basically Space Libertarianism, shading towards good old 1800s aristicratic racism: just putting "a better class of people" into a locked room, and keeping everyone else out, would create instant utopia. It's slightly less genocidal than out-and-out Fascism, since it just leaves Earth's masses to rot rather than actively killing them, but it harbours the same intense distrust and hatred of the untermensch as the worst excesses of WW2.
The problem is, utopias simply don't work like that. There've been many attempts at creating closed, self-selected communities, and they always go bad. Not even thinking about cults, have you ever seen a university, political activist movement, or high-tech company in action? Have you seen the kind of petty squabbles that occur in our elite institutions? Do you really think things will be different in space?
No. They won't be. And that's why the virtuous, pioneering Space Colony that can magic a healed biosphere and super-energy sources by sheer force of logic out of a desert of vacuum and hard radiation - just so long as they're not pestered by those ignorant savages down on Earth - is just that, a myth, and a fairly nasty one. We really need to put it behind us before it screws up our thinking even more than it has.
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Back in '07, this article was published...
http://www.physics.gla.ac.uk/~dtngo/Article/Nature_446_782_2007.pdf
As I understand this, in the classical photosynthesis model, energy transfer is sort of modeled like the incoming sunlight excites a population of light absorbing "antennea" pigments which transfer the energy to reaction centers where long term energy storage is initiated (e.g., the CO2->sugar conversion). If the energy transfer was "classically" photoelectric, you'd see a system where light excites a population of antenna of different pigments, which then re-emit the energy at a wavelength compatible with the photosynthesis.
If this was true, you could potentially measure electric field and look for frequency of absorbtion and re-emission (they would look like 2 frequency peaks). However, if there were some sort of state coupling, you'd also see beat frequencies corresponding to the difference in energies between various pigments and the re-emission. That in itself is not that interesting, but the fact that when they sent in pulses, these frequencies corresponding to beat frequencies seems to persist longer than the expected coherence time which apparently suggests that coherence lasts long enough to transit all the way from the antenna/pigments to the location of energy conversion (in this case 660 femtoseconds).
The next step is to hypothesize that you can use QM and treat the full system as essentially coherently absorbing light at with the exactly correct antenna/pigment and re-emitting it essentially lossless to the conversion point, rather than it absorbing a collection/population of antenna over a period of time (some of them efficiently, some of them less efficienty), and re-emitting the energy (the classical model). Of course this is a pretty big step and is not a constructive argument, but it is in line with observations about photosynthetic efficiency and there is now more measurements to back up the potential (QM/coherence) pathway which might be able to explain that efficiency..
I do think of space colonization of taking place at least 200 years in the future and you bring up some really good points.
On the disaster side though, if we prepare for a disaster we can weather it, if we are not prepared then we could be fucked. If a major disaster happens it won't matter that living on Earth is easier than living on Mars if how we currently live on Earth is sensitive to disasters. It could happen that an asteroid hits Yellowstone or something else comically unlikely that would kill a very large percentage of the people and make growing food outdoors very very hard. Greenhouses wouldn't work cause the sun is blocked out, you would have to grow entirely indoors using artificial light.
We can survive that, but if we had off world colonies then the colonies could help the people on Earth and make things much less end of the worldy.
And the problem is, it ISN'T and WON'T be more attractive to live in space
I can definitely agree with the ISN'T, not so much with the WON'T. If you are living in your little habitat in the Atacama desert then living in your little habitat in space might be looking about equal depending on if you can get a job there.
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
The attraction of the space colony is that it's believed to be an elite, gated community which by virtue of its extreme expense and difficulty, would attract only a "high class of colonist" along the lines of the first generation of US astronauts: university PhD educated, military trained, logical scientific thinkers, in the peak of physical fitness. Given such a genetic pool of "the right stuff", the space myth goes, these super-demigods couldn't help but create a new Utopia of scientific wonders, even given the huge resource disadvantage they started from.
Except the first colonies will more resemble an off-shore oil rig than a gated community. They will be more along the lines of places where work gets done as opposed to where decisions are made.
The problem is, utopias simply don't work like that. There've been many attempts at creating closed, self-selected communities, and they always go bad. Not even thinking about cults, have you ever seen a university, political activist movement, or high-tech company in action? Have you seen the kind of petty squabbles that occur in our elite institutions? Do you really think things will be different in space?
Yes, I have lived in a commune, or as they are more commonly called nowdays an organic community. You nailed it.
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
Oh look, a 43 year old Anonymous Coward with delusions of living somewhere other than mom's basement. Get an education, social skills, a job, a girlfriend (need I go on?), you fool.
A common misstatement. Planck's constant is a quantum of action, not energy. It has the dimensions of angular momentum, which is momentum*distance or energy*time, i.e. a volume of phase space (4-space in special relativity, dot product of position and momentum 4 vectors). Two free charged particles can exchange arbitrarily small amounts of energy over a long period of time, classical electrodynamics describing that perfectly. However a bound particle can only exchange discrete amounts of energy, the smallest corresponding to a Planck's constant change in action.
To say that "a photon" of a given energy is involved in the interaction between two bound states is a leap of faith. Photons emerge from the Bose-Einstein statistics of spin 1 particles, and are created and destroyed using the statistical raising and lowering operators that describe the energy change in the electromagnetic field.
You're quite right. I think the best route to having off-Earth colonies is to engineer people so that they can deal with zero-G, high radiation, low temperatures, and live off sunlight.
It's not us, but our solid-state descendants who will inherit the galaxy.
--PM
Certainly I've had those thoughts, and certainly I found the hypothetical results lacking. Utopia it would not be. However, it still felt correct. So years later while studying history I had this brilliant idea (that I'm certain to not be the first). I noticed that great things happened when incredible social upheaval occurs. This is mostly brought on by large migration (Aryan invasion of India, Greeks colonizing the Mediterranean, the Great Migration period of the late Roman Empire, New World colonies). In other words, I want a new America. The more I read, the more I realize the greatness of America is that it captures the high points of European culture while attempting to cast off it's low points. Once achieved, the new culture then transmits the better social order back home, uplifting all. Perhaps this can be replicated on Antarctica or in the Oceans, but most places are already politically stable and have a cultural equilibrium that prevents any revolution of having great affect (note the difference between the American and French revolutions).
So truthfully it's not that space colonization will bring some splendid utopia of perfect people, but rather give us the next migration point that allows revolutionary ideas to take hold. Perhaps the Oceans and Antartica come first. But we do need to spread out to places that allow political upheaval and new social orders. Space will be the next colony someday. And it behooves us to colonize it. Not to build a Utopia, but for the progress of man everywhere.
duh, i'm an AC and killing myself daily.
"You will die someday "
should be:
"In Theory,you will die someday "
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Bottom line: manned space colonisation doesn't offer any short-term survival advantage, but it does increase the number of immediate threats we face. In the very long term it might be worth investigating.
A short-term survival advantage would be making a game-changing discovery like extraterrestrial life or some form of cheap energy (H3 maybe?). It's presumptuous to assume there is nothing out there that can't help us right now this very instant. Earth is but a tiny sample of the what the Universe has to offer us. Who knows what is out there that could solve our current problems and radically change the world. The short expeditions we've taken into our solar system haven't even scratch the surface. It's only through long term human presence in space that we can even begin to understand how it will effect society as a whole. Exploration is human nature for a good reason. The benefits often outweigh the risks.
Orch-OR theory (Quantum Mind theory)?
If plants are doing it, I would be really surprised if such a nifty trick wouldn't also be used in communication between neurons in the brain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orch-OR
The main objection (in the face of mounting evidence and backing theory) is that quantum coherence could never be maintained at biological temperatures/environments... well I guess that's not really an issue any more.
I can't wait to see what else the emerging field of quantum biology is going to bring :D
Isn't it near madness to continue to assert that these kinds of systems evolved naturalistically via Darwinian mechanisms? While there may be some other mechanism of evolution at work (see Shapiro, for example), the idea that random mutation and natural selection could produce this kind of complexity is laughable. Its a valid hypothesis, and its OK to say this *may* have evolved Darwinistically, but there's no evidence that anything nontrivial could be built this way.
Darwin knew nothing of what goes on at the molecular level, and he distorted the scientific method in a way that biology has yet to recover from.
I am annoyed at how often these obvious "Space Nutter" troll posts keep popping up in even the most least relevant stories.
I am just as much shocked at how effective they are at getting so many people to bite.
As a political philosophy, it's basically Space Libertarianism
Space Nutter + Insane Libertarianism = Space Libertarianism.
Don't forget that a lot of people here seem to think Ayn Rand is some sort of prophet without honour, not a vicious, rabidly fascist loony.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
the greatness of America is that it captures the high points of European culture while attempting to cast off it's low points. Once achieved, the new culture then transmits the better social order back home, uplifting all.
You will have to excuse us non-Americans not quite following your argument.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I am annoyed at how often these obvious "Space Nutter" troll posts keep popping up in even the most least relevant stories.
I am just as much shocked at how effective they are at getting so many people to bite.
Just because you disagree with something doesn't make it a troll.
A lot of the pro-space flight or pro space- colonisation/ mining posts you get on slashdot are totally unrealistic and naive. When we can't even agree on whether there is anything we can do about climate change, how likely is it that we will build at enormous cost with non-existing technology fleets of starships to make thousand year journeys on the off chance we might find a habitable planet out there?
Sorry, but "Space Nutter" is not all that exaggerated a description of some of the stuff you get on slashdot. IIn the same we will have full AI in the next five years, some miraculous political and technological breakthrough will mean we'll have a full scale colony on Mars in the next ten.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Fascist is quite the stretch, given the key Objectivist principles that directly conflict with they key principles of fascism.
Loony I can buy.
"In Theory, you will die someday"
should be:
"According to our current understanding of the laws of physics, you will die someday."
--Joe