Discussion of all aspects of biological molecules, biochemical processes and laboratory procedures in the field.
6 posts • Page 1 of 1
I've been searching all over the net for an answer to the following question:
ATP hydrolysis releases energy that fuels biochemical processes. But what kind of energy are we dealing with, and how does it fuel specific processes? Is it electromagnetic energy?
I've just finished reading all the topics on this forum that dealed with ATP in relation to energy and haven't found the answer yet =>
The explanation always ends with: It releases chemical energy that can fuel other reactions
Nothing is said about how it fuels those energy needing processes
The usual jargon is that the hydrolysis of ATP results in transfer of an exciton to another reaction. What that means is that the energy released by the hydrolysis excites an electron to a higher energy level (I can't tell you which electron, but the exciton energy can be transferred atom to atom if the energy level differences match), and the return to a more stable energy might be easiest by undergoing a chemical reaction. Exactly how that energy is coupled I can't tell you. I suspect that a physicist might model that energy transfer as a photon emission and absorbtion. You have piqued my curiosity.
Thanks for the answer! I did some further research and it seems to me it is not fully discovered yet how ATP fuels biochemical processes at the atom level (from what I have found that is, I could be mistaken).
Two documents I've found that may provide an answer (haven't read them from top to bottom yet):
A PhD paper about building bridges between Biology and Physics that concludes this topic:
A statement that the ATP theory contradicts the physics of energy:
The last link is definitely not worthy of your time. Just for information covalent and ionic bonds are both found in both organic and inorganic chemistry. With such a start, I do not think that the rest is worth the elecrons emmited by my screen to display the page.
Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without
any proof. (Ashley Montague)
You're right, I was also a bit sceptical when I saw the rest of his site
The first link may have some answers, but it's going to take me some time to read it
6 posts • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests