Everything from the behavior of vast galaxy clusters to the spin of the
smallest atom may be explained by modern physics. It cannot, however,
explain life. The distinction between a live and dead mass of substance
can't be explained by any formula. Life appears to "emerge" inexplicably
from non-living components, such basic particles.
The framework of assembly theory, a daring new hypothesis that aims to
explain life at its most basic level, was just
published in Nature. It is assumed that its fundamental components are information and
complexity, like DNA. The theory offers a means of comprehending how these
ideas arise in chemical systems.
When something is greater than the sum of its parts, like water, it might
feel wet even when individual water molecules don't, a phenomenon known as
"emergence" is used by physicists to describe it. A quality that emerges is
wetness.
Despite the sophisticated mathematics, laboratory testing is eventually
necessary for the theory to be deemed trustworthy. Experiments with
meticulous design, like the one my colleagues and I are conducting at the
moment, will be necessary to anchor the abstractions of assembly theory in
the physical world of chemistry.
The fundamental tenet of assembly theory is that items may be classified
according to their formation history rather than as unchangeable entities.
This causes the procedures by which basic building components are assembled
into complex structures to come into focus.
According to the idea, there is a "assembly index" that measures the
shortest path or least number of steps needed to construct an item. The
degree of "selection" required to produce an ensemble of objects—a reference
to the memory, like DNA, needed to generate live things—is tracked by this
metric.
Living things, like helium in stars, do not merely happen by accident. They
need DNA as a template in order to produce new versions.
Expectations of originality
However, how may these theoretical ideas be investigated by
experimentation? We have
already tested
one important component of assembly theory in our lab. This is how the
assembly index is calculated using mass spectrometry, an analytical
technique that calculates the mass-to-charge ratio in molecules.
We can determine a molecule's assembly index by breaking it up and
examining its mass spectra. The number of steps required for different
fragments to come together to create a particular molecule is actually
visible to us. Other methods, such as NMR and infrared spectroscopy, can
also be used to assess the assembly index for different kinds of
molecules.
We have computed the assembly index on a variety of compounds both
computationally and in the lab. Our research demonstrates that chemicals
that are specifically linked to life, like carbon dioxide, are not
inherently as complicated or require as much information to assemble, as do
molecules like hormones and metabolites (byproducts of metabolic processes).
Indeed, as the theory predicts, we have demonstrated that molecules related
to life are the
only ones
exhibiting an assembly index greater than 15 steps.
Additionally, the hypothesis provides verifiable explanations for the
genesis of life. This is due to the theory's assertion that there exists a
threshold, or moment at which molecules become sufficiently complex that
they require memory and knowledge to replicate themselves, marking the
transition from non-life to life.
Ultimately, in non-biological systems (like our sun, which generated the
planets by bringing together a ton of mass), selection and little memory are
feasible. However, without great memory and selection capacities, neither
living things nor the technology they develop—be it Lego or rocket
science—are possible.
Chemical-based soup
By producing a kind of chemical soup in our lab, we want to look more
carefully at this beginning of life. Over time, new molecules may form in
this soup as a result of random reactions or the addition of other
reactants, and we will be able to track their assembly index and the
system's progress. We could investigate that exciting transition point from
non-life to life and find out whether it agrees with assembly theory
predictions by adjusting reaction rates and circumstances.
Additionally, we are creating "chemical soup generators," which combine
basic substances to produce complicated ones. These might advance our
knowledge of how assembly theory can be used to build complexity and how
selection can occur outside of biology.
This may reveal something about the early evolution of life, which required
less selection at initially and more and more as time went on. Are items
made in predictable ways under the same conditions? Or does chance come into
play at some point? This would enable us to determine whether life emerged
in a deterministic, predictable manner or in a more chaotic one.
As a result, assembly theory may have far wider applications. Beyond
molecules, research on other systems that depend on combinations, including
material aggregates, polymers, or artificial chemistry, may be motivated by
the framework. This might result in fresh discoveries in science or
technology. It could show minute patterns in which molecules with assembly
indices over a threshold disproportionately have particular
characteristics.
The hypothesis might potentially be applied to in-depth research on
evolution itself. Studies might look at how tiny molecules that combine to
form nucleotides and amino acids form cell fragments during the process of
building a whole cell. This kind of tracking the evolution of metabolic and
genetic networks may provide insights into historical changes in
evolution.
However, there are difficulties with experimental testing. Efficient
tracking of object assembly requires accurate experimental monitoring.
However, it may be quite worthwhile. Assembly theory holds the potential to
reveal universal principles of hierarchical formation that go beyond
biological boundaries, offering a profoundly new explanation of
matter.
It's possible that complex arrangements of matter are only markers in an
endless creation process that extends across time rather than unchangeable
entities. The universe is ultimately creative even if it abides by certain
physical rules.
Provided by
The Conversation
