The Second Law of Thermodynamics
In the past few days I have given some amount of thought to my philosophy regarding the dynamics of human interpersonal relationships. This has been brought about by various events: the rekindling of new friendships, the loss of promising new ones, surprise at decisions made by myself and others, and essentially the revival of my interests in biology. Irrespective of the reasons, I was struck to discover that my beliefs and views were quite accurately mirrored by the interactions between proteins within cells, governed by the second law of thermodynamics. I guess Dr. Hoops in Cell Biology had a more profound impact on me than previously suspected.
Proteins in a cell may exist as self-sufficient units, or more frequently may be part of a conglomerate of many different pieces, each of which may perform vastly different functions, but together they form a coherent unit able to perform some function integral to the life of the cell. These different pieces are coded separately, formed differently, yet are able to find one another through no other means except simple diffusion. These interactions can be predicted, as can the spontaneity of any event, chemical or otherwise, by the second law o f thermodynamics, according to which, the most overall stable state will always be favored.
In practice, protein subunits are held together by a large number of weak interactions between compatible surfaces; each of these alone would be insufficient to maintain the entire structure, but their collective action confers strength to the whole, ensuring a durable connection. This is not to say that less favorable interactions simply do not take place: a comparatively unstable and therefore transient structure can be formed between subunits which are somewhat compatible, but not the most so. Thus, these minute molecules are able to traverse through relatively large distances and after much experimental interaction between themselves settle into the most stable structure possible, as dictated by the current conditions.
This is a slight oversimplification of matters. The environment in which these interactions are played out is essential in determining which structures are most stable. At times, some other particle needs to be present to bring suitable particles together: in the absence of these chaperones, the particles are unable to discern their compatibility and are doomed to wander incomplete.
Further, this most stable structure that each protein is not entirely permanent: changes in the environment or simply the innate energy of the component particles may lead to occasional estrangement. However, if these do form the most compatible structures for one another, they will rejoin at some time to enjoy comparative stability. It is true however, that the more stable the structure they form, the less likely it is for it to be disrupted, such that perfect compatibility corresponds to virtual permanence.
The correspondence to human relationships is fairly straightforward. Any person may exist as a self-sufficient unit, or in most cases, as a part of a group of interacting people. Most people are capable of getting along with most others: it is very rare to have absolutely nothing shared to bond over. The extent of these bonds on the other hand shows a large degree of variance. There will always be some people we fit best with; personal experience upholds this claim. Some of the people we fit best with take us by surprise, because of how very different we seem on the surface. But the union of these dissimilar pieces may create a unit incorporating the strengths of all its components and capable of fulfilling some unique purpose. These groups of people are held together by some tenuous links and other deeper bonds, but even the most stable of all groups are not permanent. Changes in condition can break apart the closest of all friendships, estrange the dearest lovers. However, if these bonds are the most stable, and the most favorable for all concerned, they will be reunited, sooner rather than later, and reconcile to a future of virtual permanence.
Thus, it stands to reason, that if there is a compatible being present, in time, they shall be found. The time taken may vary between an instant to an eternity, but with a certainty derived from statistics, the parts of a whole will meet. Such a union may be spontaneous, or it may require the action of some other individual who is able to distinguish compatibilities the individuals themselves are blind to. And while changes in conditions may decide which structure is most stable, this does not change the fact that for any set of conditions there exists a most stable structure. It is simply a matter of finding it. If the most stable structure happens to be monomeric, the individual has no reason to complain either, since this is the situation which is most favorable to all, including himself.
The most important revelation for me in this correspondence however, relates to the means by which these interactions are brought about. These theories about the cell and its inhabitants are based on the mean field approximation, facilitated by simple diffusion of small particles across large distances. The efficiency and speed by which this phenomenon takes place removes the effects of space on these interactions: any particle can interact with any other within the boundaries of the cell.
Imagine a cell in which these particles were static: with no movement there would be no interactions to speak of, and these multi-functional complexes would never be formed. Imagine again, a cell in which the first interaction is the very last. Such a cell would also not be viable since there is no guarantee at all that the most stable complex will be formed first. Even if it did, a slight change in conditions would be fatal for a cell with such inflexible components.
Therefore, for these theories to hold, not only is it required for individuals to be willing to be mobile, it is also necessary for them to be flexible and to understand that even something which is highly favored cannot be absolutely permanent. It is only by being mobile and exposing oneself to many other different individuals, irrespective of how improbable it may seem to us ourselves for such individuals to be compatible with ourselves, can we increase our chances of finding exactly where we belong. It is only by being flexible that we can continue to look for better places for ourselves and everybody else, by refusing to be tied down to something which may not be the best for the people concerned. And it is only by being willing to let go can we allow ourselves the chance to realize which relationship is the strongest and most enduring of time and situation. And after the test of time, after all concerned have realized their places, we can settle down into a future of virtual permanence.
A small aside: Certain proteins function as enzymes which have a slightly different story. Their interparticular interactions follow similar rules, but with different outcomes: an enzyme and the molecule upon which it acts share a temporary but strong bond, at the end of which the enzyme remains essentially unchanged, but the substance with which it consorted is changed drastically and beyond reform.
But this is not all. Even enzymes can be affected at their core - there exist some substances which interact with an enzyme so very strongly that they may render it unable to interact with any other substance ever again in its lifetime. Sometimes these powerful substances needs to stay in contact with the enzyme to effect this change in its proclivities, at other occasions, a momentary connection may be all that is required. Thus, the instrument of such profound change can itself be changed by a moment's touch.
There are some enzymes in this world, who are destined to touch the lives of all those around them. It is sad however, that unless it comes across some substance to act upon it, it is doomed to an eternity of one-sided service. Enzymes should be cherished, they do so much and get so little in return.
Proteins in a cell may exist as self-sufficient units, or more frequently may be part of a conglomerate of many different pieces, each of which may perform vastly different functions, but together they form a coherent unit able to perform some function integral to the life of the cell. These different pieces are coded separately, formed differently, yet are able to find one another through no other means except simple diffusion. These interactions can be predicted, as can the spontaneity of any event, chemical or otherwise, by the second law o f thermodynamics, according to which, the most overall stable state will always be favored.
In practice, protein subunits are held together by a large number of weak interactions between compatible surfaces; each of these alone would be insufficient to maintain the entire structure, but their collective action confers strength to the whole, ensuring a durable connection. This is not to say that less favorable interactions simply do not take place: a comparatively unstable and therefore transient structure can be formed between subunits which are somewhat compatible, but not the most so. Thus, these minute molecules are able to traverse through relatively large distances and after much experimental interaction between themselves settle into the most stable structure possible, as dictated by the current conditions.
This is a slight oversimplification of matters. The environment in which these interactions are played out is essential in determining which structures are most stable. At times, some other particle needs to be present to bring suitable particles together: in the absence of these chaperones, the particles are unable to discern their compatibility and are doomed to wander incomplete.
Further, this most stable structure that each protein is not entirely permanent: changes in the environment or simply the innate energy of the component particles may lead to occasional estrangement. However, if these do form the most compatible structures for one another, they will rejoin at some time to enjoy comparative stability. It is true however, that the more stable the structure they form, the less likely it is for it to be disrupted, such that perfect compatibility corresponds to virtual permanence.
The correspondence to human relationships is fairly straightforward. Any person may exist as a self-sufficient unit, or in most cases, as a part of a group of interacting people. Most people are capable of getting along with most others: it is very rare to have absolutely nothing shared to bond over. The extent of these bonds on the other hand shows a large degree of variance. There will always be some people we fit best with; personal experience upholds this claim. Some of the people we fit best with take us by surprise, because of how very different we seem on the surface. But the union of these dissimilar pieces may create a unit incorporating the strengths of all its components and capable of fulfilling some unique purpose. These groups of people are held together by some tenuous links and other deeper bonds, but even the most stable of all groups are not permanent. Changes in condition can break apart the closest of all friendships, estrange the dearest lovers. However, if these bonds are the most stable, and the most favorable for all concerned, they will be reunited, sooner rather than later, and reconcile to a future of virtual permanence.
Thus, it stands to reason, that if there is a compatible being present, in time, they shall be found. The time taken may vary between an instant to an eternity, but with a certainty derived from statistics, the parts of a whole will meet. Such a union may be spontaneous, or it may require the action of some other individual who is able to distinguish compatibilities the individuals themselves are blind to. And while changes in conditions may decide which structure is most stable, this does not change the fact that for any set of conditions there exists a most stable structure. It is simply a matter of finding it. If the most stable structure happens to be monomeric, the individual has no reason to complain either, since this is the situation which is most favorable to all, including himself.
The most important revelation for me in this correspondence however, relates to the means by which these interactions are brought about. These theories about the cell and its inhabitants are based on the mean field approximation, facilitated by simple diffusion of small particles across large distances. The efficiency and speed by which this phenomenon takes place removes the effects of space on these interactions: any particle can interact with any other within the boundaries of the cell.
Imagine a cell in which these particles were static: with no movement there would be no interactions to speak of, and these multi-functional complexes would never be formed. Imagine again, a cell in which the first interaction is the very last. Such a cell would also not be viable since there is no guarantee at all that the most stable complex will be formed first. Even if it did, a slight change in conditions would be fatal for a cell with such inflexible components.
Therefore, for these theories to hold, not only is it required for individuals to be willing to be mobile, it is also necessary for them to be flexible and to understand that even something which is highly favored cannot be absolutely permanent. It is only by being mobile and exposing oneself to many other different individuals, irrespective of how improbable it may seem to us ourselves for such individuals to be compatible with ourselves, can we increase our chances of finding exactly where we belong. It is only by being flexible that we can continue to look for better places for ourselves and everybody else, by refusing to be tied down to something which may not be the best for the people concerned. And it is only by being willing to let go can we allow ourselves the chance to realize which relationship is the strongest and most enduring of time and situation. And after the test of time, after all concerned have realized their places, we can settle down into a future of virtual permanence.
A small aside: Certain proteins function as enzymes which have a slightly different story. Their interparticular interactions follow similar rules, but with different outcomes: an enzyme and the molecule upon which it acts share a temporary but strong bond, at the end of which the enzyme remains essentially unchanged, but the substance with which it consorted is changed drastically and beyond reform.
But this is not all. Even enzymes can be affected at their core - there exist some substances which interact with an enzyme so very strongly that they may render it unable to interact with any other substance ever again in its lifetime. Sometimes these powerful substances needs to stay in contact with the enzyme to effect this change in its proclivities, at other occasions, a momentary connection may be all that is required. Thus, the instrument of such profound change can itself be changed by a moment's touch.
There are some enzymes in this world, who are destined to touch the lives of all those around them. It is sad however, that unless it comes across some substance to act upon it, it is doomed to an eternity of one-sided service. Enzymes should be cherished, they do so much and get so little in return.