Tải bản đầy đủ - 0 (trang)
7 Conclusion: Physical Phenomena from the Point of View of Biological Ones

7 Conclusion: Physical Phenomena from the Point of View of Biological Ones

Tải bản đầy đủ - 0trang


The Common Extremalities in Biology and Physics

breaking), and as a result into the local form of physical penalty. This is expressed

formally by the Lagrangian, and the penalty is qualitatively redistributed.

Formally, such an expression of the potential as in Eqs. (5.191) and (5.192) does

not provide the former conditions of complete internal payoff, and it therefore

introduces some dissipation into the formerly nondissipative physical world.

It should be emphasized that all conclusions and penalty interpretations do not

depend to a large extent on the particular form of hierarchy of physical structures

in microscale (i.e., the hierarchy on the fundamental physical scale, like quark and

lepton states), which actually highlights the conceptual usefulness of the considered

phenomenology. On a megascale, these interpretations do not depend on whether

gravitational interactions are really independent of other interactions or whether

they are a collective effect of all other interactions. Thus, the above-stated

energetic and penalty interpretation considers the phenomenology of all these processes, which are expressed by the maximum energy dissipation/least action principle. It is hoped that this work will expand knowledge about the microstructure of

physical fields (like string or superstring theories and even more complex ideas and

experiments of megastructures as integrating states). It will not decrease the significance of the energetic and penalty approach, which is essentially based on the consideration of positive parts of local penalty as formally fining a physical system

and negative ones as paying off the penalty in the transformation of physical material forms.

The above consideration of physical formalism presents as one of its main questions the relationships between physics and biology—and to what extent there is a

flow of instability supporting the existence of the physical world (as seen in

Figure 5.13, left arrow), considering the formal expression by positively determined

components of the generalized penalty. Does the physical world occur through the

flow of energy from a so-called physical vacuum, and is the physical world a result

of this inflow? Can the physical world perform the extreme dissipation of this flow,

or is it to some extent only the product, or the “waste” of the dissipation that takes

place at the early stages of physical evolution? Can the techno-economical system

of Homo sapiens directly use this inflow from a physical vacuum by shifting and

shunting it from physical structures? Will this shunting be able to break the stability of physical structures themselves? Can we answer this question by analyzing

the formal structure of forms of the Lagrange function or the Lagrangian in the theories of fields, used in physics, along with the properties of these formal constructions in relation to certain transformations of coordinates or fields? If the physical

Lagrangian could comprise a penalty interpretation, then to what extent would

it contradict the existing standard physical ideology and the physical way of


Naturally, the illustration presented here was not aimed at finding some new

effects or their predictions; the present work pursued the purpose of fitting biological laws to physical ones, as they are inclusive, both proceeding from time, energy,

space, and mass of substance scales. This inclusion consisted in a uniform ideology

for biological events and processes, at least within the scope of biological phenomena. It is necessary to realize that the optimal or extreme character of individual

Phenomenological Cost and Penalty Interpretation of the Lagrange Formalism in Physics


biological processes can be conceptually explained within the framework of variational/optimal control formal representations, which employ the ideology of the

maximum energy dissipation/least action principle.

As discussed, the kinetic part has the nature of penalty for the control, particular

to the occurrence of dynamics in the physical systems. The potential part could

characterize the penalty for an unstable state without any motion. In contrast, in

biological kinetics in terms of variational formulation, the dynamics and the static,

steady state and equilibrium are penalized. In physics, the kinetic part that is

explicitly responsible for dynamics is also positive, and it could be interpreted as

the penalty of occurrence of motion in space. This penalty seems to be compensated by the potential part describing internal degrees of freedom, and it can be

interpreted as a energetic profit. The internal spaces, possessed of this profit, seem

to pay the penalty for the opportunity of motion in the external, kinetic ones.

However, the explicit penalty for potentiality interferes with some cases in

extremely intercompensational relationships between the kinetic and potential parts,

when the potential acquires negative components (positive for the Lagrangian). In

physics, this component is referred to as the influence of the physical vacuum carried out by the hypothetical fields—the Higgs bosons. Could this mean that in such

cases, the space for motion and for intercompensation is necessary, and only internal spaces are not sufficient for physical motion in nature?

Generally, from all the particular models discussed above and their generalizations, it follows that the optimal control like the mutual penalty interpretation of

physics and biology is certainly possible and can indicate extensive consequences.


1. Landau, L. D., and Lifshitz, E. M. (1976). “Mechanics v1.” 3rd ed. ButterworthHeinemann, New York, NY.

2. Медведев, Б. В. Нaчaлa теоретической физики, М., Нaукa, 496 с.

3. Pontryagin, L. S., Boltyanskii, V. G., Gamkrelidze, R. V., and Mischenko, E. F. (1962).

“The Mathematical Theory of Optimal Processes.” Interscience, New York, NY.

4. Landau, L. D., and Lifshitz, E. M. (1959). “Theoretical Physics: The Classical Field

Theory.” Pergamon Press, London.

5. Боголюбов, Н. Н., Ширков, Д. В., Квaнтовые поля, М., Нaукa, 1980, 320 с.

6. Нелипa, Н. Ф. 1977. Физикa элементaрных чaстиц, М., “Высшaя школa.” 608.

7. Iliopoulos, J. (1976). An Introduction to Gauge Theories. CERN Preprint 76À11.

Geneva. илиопулос, Д. 1977. Введение в кaлибровочные тории, жФН, Т. 123,


8. Georgi, H., Glashow, S. “Unity of all Elementary Particle-Forces.” PRL, 32 (1974),

438. Джорджи, Х. Единaя теория элементaрных чaстиц, жФН, 1982, Т.136,

с. 287À316.

9. Weinberg, S. (1995). The Quantum Theory of Fields. Cambridge University Press,


10. Ryder, L. H. (1997). Quantum Field Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

11. Huang, K. (1992). Quarks Leptons and Gauge Fields. World Scientific, Singapore.


The Common Extremalities in Biology and Physics

12. Wilczek, F. 2000. QCD in Extreme Conditions, arXiv:hep-ph/0003183.

13. Dremin, I. M., and Kaidalov, A. B. (2006). Quantum chromodynamics and the phenomenology of strong interactions. Usp. Fiz. Nauk 176(3), 275À287.

14. Gorsky, A. S. (2005). Gauge theories as string theories: the first results. Usp. Fiz. Nauk

175(11), 1145À1162.

15. Grojean, C. (2007). New approaches to electroweak symmetry breaking. Usp.Fiz. Nauk

177(1), 3À42.

16. Окунь, Л. Б. 1981. Современное состояние и перспективы физики высоких

энергий, жФН, 134, Вып.1, с. 3À44.

17. Ross, G. G. (1985). Grand unified theories. Westview Press, Reading, MA.

18. Dimopoulos, S., Raby, S., and Wilczek, F. (1981). “Supersymmetry and the Scale of

Unification”. Physical Review D 24, 1681À1683.

19. Likhtman, E. P. (2001). Supersymmetry: 30 years ago. Usp. Fiz. Nauk 171(9),


20. Mohapatra, R. N. (2003). Unification and Supersymmetry: The Frontiers of Quark-lepton

Physics. Springer, Berlin.

21. Novikov, V. A. (2004). Nonperturbative QCD and supersymmetric QCD. Usp.Fiz. Nauk

174(2), 113À120.

22. Raby, S. (2009). SUSY GUT model building. Eur. Phys. J. C59, 223À247.


23. Vysotskii, M. I., and Nevzorov, R. B. (2001). Selected problems in SUSY phenomenology.

Usp.Fiz. Nauk 171(9), 939À950.

24. Muller, M. (1989). Consistent Classical Supergravity Theories. Springer Verlag Berlin;

Heidelberg; New York; London.

25. Weinberg, S. 1977. “The First Three Minutes.” Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge, MA.

6 Conceptual Aspects of the Common

Extrema in Biology and Physics


Self-Sufficiency of Extreme Transformations

The applicability of the maximum energy dissipation principle as a special form of the

least action principle, which uses the optimal control and variation methods in the conceptual and technical unification of biology and physics, mechanics and biological

kinetics, and also physical and biological evolution, shows universal strength of the

extreme penalty-and-energy interpretation of the laws in these quite opposite fields. As

a result of this interpretation and of the ideological penetration of biology into physics,

an important conclusion follows through the penalty treatment of the least action principle: Instability and its intensive penalty evaluation—energy (specifically free

energy) strives to equilibrium and stability in an extremely rapid way. Such a general conclusion doubtlessly requires more comprehensive consideration that perhaps

cannot be done separately only in physics or only in biology.

In this situation, physical and biological evolutions acquire obvious penaltyenergy touch: the emergence, the existence, and the destruction of material systems

are only the material forms of the extreme utilization and elimination of instability,

and they may be the last material consumption forms of these imperfect systems.

What could be the most general and common properties and laws for such rather

different and opposite phenomena as biological (including biosocial) and physical


6.1.1 Nonequilibrium/Instability

The properties of motion may be considered to have nonequilibrium/instability at

the different known structural levels of organization of matter: chemical, prebiotic,

biological, biosocial, and physical. This enables us to conclude that one of the

principal properties inherent in each of the above material forms of motion is the

nonequilibrium/instability of the majority of structural and energy states.

The essential features of this nonequilibrium/instability include relative nonequilibrium, which is the instability of the structural forms of matter organization, and relative equilibrium, which is the relative stability of its other forms. The nonequilibrium/

instability can be characterized by the universal value of energy—generally, free


The Common Extremalities in Biology and Physics. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-12-385187-1.00006-X

© 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.



The Common Extremalities in Biology and Physics

Motion Is a Striving Toward Stability

Another property, closely related to energetic nonequilibrium/instability, is the

following: The interactions in any of the listed areas of motion and evolution could

be characterized by a certain direction, by irreversibility or dissipative transformation of nonequilibrium/instability and its universal characteristic—energy. This is

classically expressed in physics in the second law of thermodynamics, which postulates the irreversibility of the transitions of energy from some energy forms to thermal degrees in macro-nature. The consideration of evolution in other areas shows

that all other energy transitions are accompanied by this fatal directness. This can be

explained by the preferable equilibrium/stability of energy in the form of thermal


Such a division into the unstable and stable forms, and the motion as a transition

from instability to stability, enables one to treat the nonequilibrium and instability

as the sources of motion of matter. At the same time, the source of the new forms

of material nonequilibrium/instability and the new structural forms are also

enclosed into this motion toward relative equilibrium/stability.

The material motion is, thus, displayed as the material implementation of instability transitions and the conversion of the nonequilibrium/instability into the equilibrium/stability. This implementation includes the sense of material motion and

the existence of forms at all structural levels of matter organization. Thus, the

material states strive to increase their equilibrium/stability status.



Moreover, such a transformation of the material forms of motion at all levels of

structural organization of matter is carried out not lazily or with indifference, but in

the most effective, fast, and most extreme way. This extreme quality seems to be

inherent in matter at all levels: intertransformation of material forms of motion

from unstable to more stable forms is carried out as quickly as possible. It is the

result of the competitiveness of material forms.


Ordered Way/Regularity

The extremeness of transformation can be achieved only in an ordered, regular way.

Transformation is a fast and ordered means of dissipation. The extremeness is a generalization of the least action principle for all material transformations. It appears

that in physics, the least action principle is only a special case of the principle of

extreme transformation of more unstable forms of material motion. The least action

principle is a special case of the general methodological principle of the striving of

nonequilibrated and unstable forms toward greater equilibrium and stability.

This methodological principle can be formulated as follows: the material forms

of motion strive toward the maximum rate of transformation and increase in direction toward stability and the maximum reduction of instability of relatively

unstable material forms.

Conceptual Aspects of the Common Extrema in Biology and Physics



New Instability—The Result of the Ordered, Structured Process

of the Elimination of Extreme Instability

It may seem that such an evolution of the forms of material motion should inevitably result in a greater and greater increase of common equilibrium, of common stability of all forms, and into the degeneration of forms of nonequilibrium—to be

completely replaced by a few others and in an impasse in the variety of the material forms of motion. However, the extremeness of transformations of relatively

unstable forms to relatively stable forms can be carried out only through development of the regularity of this process. Thus, the striving toward the maximum

transformation rate of material forms to more stable forms is possible only through

the development of the new unstable process of increasing relative stability and

generation of the new material form of regularity. But at the same time, the new

material form of instability is nonequilibrium.

This process of separation of the interacting material forms occurs when a rather

nonequilibrated, unstable state of the material forms is transformed (and as rapidly

as possible) to a steadier state only by division of the previous state by steadier

states and the new form of instability. Such a process of splitting a steadier state up

occurs by means of generation of a new material form of instability and a new

energy form, as a measure of this instability, which is realized by the interaction of

all forms of material motion, coexisting in the given state of matter. In this sense,

the production of relative stability is inalienably, inseparably connected to the

production of relative instability.

In summary, it is possible to differentiate the following general properties of

interaction of the material forms of motion:

1. Nonequilibrium and instability of some forms of material motion, relative stability and

equilibrium of other material forms. It might be postulated as the existence of the common measure of instability—energy.

2. The essence of the motion as transition of this instability, of nonequilibrium into a more

stable, equilibrated, steadier state. It might be postulated as some selective energy/matter


3. Extreme character of this transition to stability and to equilibrium. This might be

expressed by the least action principle.

4. Ordered way of transformation, through the organized form of production of disorder. It

might be expressed in postulating the existence of informational processes.

5. Materialization of an extreme process through generation of a new instability and new

nonequilibrium process of interaction of material forms of motion. The newly generated

nonequilibrium is also a source of instability, having an energetic form, and it is a source

of the next changes, when the first property can be applied. This can be postulated as

evolution or biology as the universal property.

The set of these properties/laws offers a rather peculiar picture of evolution

of the material forms of motion. Consequently, the sense of the motion changes:

not to achieve equilibrium and “thermal death,” but new material forms of nonequilibrium. It means that the main state of matter is basically nonequilibrium.

Only forms of nonequilibrium can replace, and nonequilibrium is universal and


The Common Extremalities in Biology and Physics

natural for all of the matter. The material motion looks like a shift of the nonequilibrium forms striving as fast as possible toward equilibrium. Matter is nonequilibrated, and it is unstable and stable at the same time. The extremely fast

striving of nonequilibrium, instability to equilibrium, derives a new form of


In the overall picture, it appears that the nature of equilibrium has an advantage

of some sort. None of the forms of material motion has an advantage. The advantage has only a local character in time and space, structure, and material form of

energy or substance. The continuous and steady change of the forms of motion is

the main state of matter, and the motion is a shift of the forms of material equilibrium and nonequilibrium. In this way, the motion of matter is paradoxical: The

maximum production of equilibrium, stability, and disorder can be carried out only

in an ordered way through unstable processes and states. It demonstrates that an

ideal chaos (disorder) can emerge, and this can appear only due to the development of the ideal order. Extreme, maximum production of stability can be developed only by means of production of instability and vice versa. Matter, aiming

toward a maximum production of disorder in an extreme form, aims at the same

time to a maximum of order and to a maximum degree of regularity of extremely

rapid disorder production. Matter can simultaneously be aimed toward order and

disorder and to stability and instability. It can be aimed toward stability in an

unstable way and toward instability in a stable way. This explains that the motion

of matter is a paradox, but the existence of matter is an even more fascinating paradox. It should also be noted that organized material motion is internally open.

The material forms, being in an unstable state and aiming to reduce their instability, can shift the overall organization of motion, including the structural form of

total stability.

Therefore, the motion could be treated as open and as indefinite in terms of the

variety of forms of motion, in relation to the future states.

The material motion probably has an anti-impassive character. Otherwise, if the

material motion is restricted with regard to the number of forms, then in infinite

terms, really absolute equilibrium, the absolute rest, and some variant of “thermal

death” are the only explanations. Only in the case of openness, as mentioned above,

is the absolute rest of matter impossible. It can manifest itself only as relative

nonequilibrium, with attributes of instability.


Intensive and Extensive Property of Displaying

of Material Instability

It was already mentioned above that the maximum energy dissipation principle on

the basis of which we can conceptually unite natural (physical) and biological regularities formally appears as a requirement of extremeness of the functional, which

has dimensions of the action. Let us consider once again the formal structure of

this functional.

Conceptual Aspects of the Common Extrema in Biology and Physics


In the thermodynamic, explicit dissipative area and in the field of biological

dissipative processes and their evolution, the principle is formally and mathematically expressed as:


_ 1 GðxÞÞdt -min;



_ is the penalty for kinetics,

where x_ is amplitude of kinetic degrees of freedom, TðxÞ

x is degrees of freedom of the deviation from a steady state, and G(x) is the penalty

for this deviation.

In the purely physical, nondissipative area:


_ 2 UðxÞÞdt -min;



where x is the degrees of freedom of the system deviation from the steady state; x_

_ is the kinetic

is velocities, or rates of motion in these degrees of freedom; TðxÞ

member describing kinetic loss and penalty for kinetic motion; and U(x) is an

“anti-penalty,” which is an energetical profit-like value for deviation from some

steady or equilibrium state.

We should recall that in the physical area, the control looks rather like selfcontrol due to the enormous speeds occurring at this regulation.

In the formal sense in both these cases, the variables that are included in the

functional of the penalty can be divided into the following: the variables determining the “instant pressure” of payment and penalty character, and the values of the

prices (rather, the intensity parameters) as well as the variable determining the

duration of this “penalty pressure”—time (rather an extensive parameter).

The form of the structure of these two formal expressions indicate the availability of two different generalized kinds of degrees of freedom of material motion,

which are related to energy-like and time-like dissipative transformations.

The values, directly describing the nonequilibrium, instability of motion, and the

internal “stock” of this instability, can be referred to as energy-like ones, and the

values related to them, in which this realization of instability is only extensively

displayed, can be referred to as time-like ones.

In the first degrees, the intensity or energy content is formalized, striving to

greater stability, and the penalty valuation of system state, energy forms, and structures are in unstable states. In the values related to the second degrees, the motion

is displayed only as a result of the mutual competition of relative stability and relative instability. The time-like value acts as an integrating factor, taking into account

the accumulation of local penalties and instant instabilities.

From the expressions (6.1) and (6.2), one can write a general expression for the

extreme requirement of interconversions of degrees of freedom of material motion

between some states A and B:


J 5 Ldt - min;




The Common Extremalities in Biology and Physics

where L is a generalized function formalizing the local energy and penalty for

instability/nonequilibrium, and t can be considered the generalized parameter of

duration. The last parameter, time, can be treated as a degree of freedom of motion

of the given unstable state transformations of material forms, in which the result of

their transformations is manifested. Let us compare these two parameters, energy

and time, in a more detailed way, as they are interdependent aspects of material



Energy in the Penalty Sense

In terms of energy, it was already noted that on the one hand, there is a measure of

instability of the form of motion, and on the other hand, there is a measure of its

stability, since it also characterizes the internal steady motion in a steady state. The

expression (6.3) could be treated as determining the evolutionary motion of some

structural-matter form from a rather unstable state into a rather stable one. It also

determines the competitive relationship of these two opposite states. In the terms of

the Hegelian dialectic, energy can be considered a measure of struggle and a measure of unity of these competitive states. This expression explains the internal duality of energy: its instability and its stability. The generalized measure of cause of

energy is the measure of intensity of conversion of this relative instability to relative stability. This duality shows that, with respect to time-like parameters, one

state of matter could be considered as equilibrated and stable, whereas others could

be considered as nonequilibrated and unstable—that could be a source for emergence of other forms of motion.


Time in the Penalty Sense

If energy is a common source of the struggle of competition of forms, and its penalty

evaluation has explicit dynamic sense, then time is a result of this struggle giving an

opportunity for energy to materialize in a certain material way. In an overstated

interpretation, time is the extent and the duration. In the above dissipative energy,

control-and-penalty understanding of motion, time is a general extensive measure of

(common) coexistence of material forms. This generalized measure of the result

of the struggle, displayed as duration, is the duration of coexistence and the struggle

of these oppositions. Time in this way is only an extensive measure of relative stability of the coexisting forms. In contrast to time, energy is an intensive measure of

instability, measuring the striving of material forms to stability and equilibrium. It is

displayed as the intensity of striving of instability to stability, and it is initially the

cause of the struggle between stable and unstable tendencies.

We could say that the causality in evolution of instability forms goes from intensive internal degrees of freedom of material motion to extensive degrees, with

more explicit external presentation of degrees of freedom of motion. Evolution

goes from instability and nonequilibrium to those degrees of freedom, in which

this instability is displayed and competes again, for example, in conventional

space-time. Thus, the forms of instability derive time as an extensive display of

Conceptual Aspects of the Common Extrema in Biology and Physics


competitiveness of this motion of the striving to stability. In addition, it should be

noted that the sense of time is also related to the process of measurement of time.

In a certain way, the measurement of time is a comparison of the duration of the

process with a metric, for which the more stable, steady, periodic mechanical-like

process that could be characterized by nondissipative transformation, which is comparable to the processes that are going to be measured. All unstable related changes

are compared to this mechanical-like process.

Therefore, time expresses itself as a measure of instability of the given forms of

existence of matter relative to one another, in which time as well as energy reflect

all generalized properties of this struggle, such as the direction of this struggle

toward a greater stability. As all forms of matter motion compete for stability and

develop stability in themselves, time is a universal characteristic of their relative

stability only. Therefore, time can be understood as a self-oriented action, induced

by matter, with the purpose of finding and selecting more stable material forms of

existence, as an extensive measure of the competitiveness of forms of motion. In

this situation, the motion of matter makes sense as a mutual effect of coexisting

material forms. This mutual effect is induced by all forms that exist at the moment,

and this action is displayed as some material form, destructively acting on the previous states, deforming and changing them, and deriving new forms of motion.

As this form of displaying of the material forms of motion quite differently

affects various structural-energy forms, time forces them to decay or to arise


Thus, a concept of the materiality of time could consist in common creation of

an extensive direction, an arrow, in which the result of the mutual common interaction of all structural forms on themselves is compared (as well as in information

mapping of material forms). In some sense, it is the generalized direction where the

manifestation of these common actions is expressed. Its general result looks like a

destruction of one form of matter motion and the emergence of others. This is a

degree of freedom, in which the extremeness of intertransformation and its struggle

displays as the rate of intertransformation into newly created material states, and it

is manifested or self-scaled. Time in this sense is the action, the “pressure” of the

common motion of matter on its unstable forms. Thus, time is a general form of

displaying self-action and self-selection of material forms, and it is a generalized

metric (measure) of their competitiveness.

In these terms, energy as an intensive measure is the reason for the self-action

described above. In its turn, energy is a measure of instability; it is a driving internal force of the intertransformation of the forms that are manifested as motion. For

this reason, energy is the property and measurement of the impelled potential of

material motion, and time is the universal result of this motion, and they are the

general forms of matter existence.

Therefore, time is also a generalized degree of freedom of motion, in which the

instability and extremeness of the intertransformation of motion are displayed. In this

sense, material motion is a reason for unity of the energy-penalty properties, and time

is the consequence both in every individual act of this motion as well as in the motion

itself. So one can say that matter is not only the reason but also the result.



The Common Extremalities in Biology and Physics

Natural and Biotic Things—Lethal Gap or Irrational


It was already pointed out above that the biological area of processes could be

characterized by an ever-increasing energy dissipation rate, corresponding to the

MEP principle, which is the thermodynamic formulation of the least action principle. The biotic and postbiotic evolutions are good examples of the colossal involvement of free energy in the circulation of dissipative events occurring in nature.

But nature abounds with quite equilibrated physical structures, from which the

world was created and has existed for about 15 billion years. The physical processes occurring in such systems can be interpreted from the point of view of the

maximum rate of energy dissipation (production of entropy), which results in

observation of an infinitely small free energy consumption. The maximum nondissipation of physical structures occurs when the penalty for existence is paid in a

nondissipated way by the internal potential—internal hidden and unobserved

degrees of freedom—in the way that it is impossible to establish which internal

degrees of freedom have such a potential.

How can the rather opposite branches of material evolution—natural (physical)

and biological—agree from the point of view of extreme energy dissipation? There

are two alternative conceptual models of the coordination of these processes that

could be suggested from the point of view of the internal development and organization of processes in a system. They are based on the consideration of the dissipation of the maximum rate for biological systems and the minimum dissipation for

physical ones.


“Continuous” Model—The Irrational Compromise

The most consecutive consideration can be based on the assumption that the chemothermodynamic, biosocial area, on the one hand, and the physical area, on the

other, are the expansion of an universal manner of total material evolution. It was

discussed above that the description in these fields can be based on the ideology of

the least action principle.

The graphic interpretation suggested for the least action principle is offered in

Figure 1.1 and later in Figure 4.31, and it can be summarized in the form shown in

Figure 6.1. According to this figure, it is formally possible to expand a continuous

transition of the global dissipation rate (curve “continuous” model, Figure 6.1),

which qualitatively describes the biothermodynamic way that it decreases, and that

corresponds to physical prototype, physical future, and physical continuation of the

evolution of the chemo-bio-socio processes. This expansion does not give a rise of

dissipation or consumption of energy sources. One can see that the dimension

under this curve has a dimension of action, which equals energy multiplied by time

units. However, the following circumstance aggravates this model: In this continuous picture, it is supposed that the physical motion of material systems and its

internal structural organization goes by nonmechanical stages in its evolution. It, in

Tài liệu bạn tìm kiếm đã sẵn sàng tải về

7 Conclusion: Physical Phenomena from the Point of View of Biological Ones

Tải bản đầy đủ ngay(0 tr)