What is the difference between the atoms in inanimate matter and those in organic matter?

[Napier]

@Polycarp

Almost all of every living thing is made up of these carbon-chain organic chemicals.

Well, before we all go jumping into bed together, remember we’re mostly water.

[njtt]

@MrDibble

==Not true - Silicon does this too.

And germanium. During my final two years of highschool, my chemistry teacher was newly minted Ph.D. who had done his doctoral research on the chemistry of trigermane,* a germanium based analog of propane, and would sometimes sometimes digress from the organic chemistry he was supposed to be teaching us, to tell us how the analogous reaction went with a germanium chain. IIRC, most of the germanium chemistry had to carried out a very low temperatures (presumably because the germanium chains became unstable at higher temperatures), but otherwise it was broadly similar to the regular organic stuff.
*The spelling is a guess.

[Polycarp]

@Napier

Well, before we all go jumping into bed together, remember we’re mostly water.

OK, you get to sleep on the wet spot!

[Anne_Neville]

@jjimm

In my understanding, there is no difference. But according to an insufferable hippy I once knew, atoms and molecules in inorganic matter “don’t have a soul”.

So… souls are made of carbon? Graphite or diamonds?

@Aspidistra

There is no difference in the atoms in organic and inorganic matter. A carbon atom inside you is exactly the same as a carbon atom inside your pencil.

In fact, they’re identical particles (assuming they’re both in the same quantum state). Their physical properties are identical. Quantum mechanics says you can’t tell them apart by tracking their trajectories, since they’re wavefunctions, not just particles.

[Polycarp]

@Anne_Neville

So… souls are made of carbon? Graphite or diamonds?

In fact, they’re identical particles (assuming they’re both in the same quantum state). Their physical properties are identical. Quantum mechanics says you can’t tell them apart by tracking their trajectories, since they’re wavefunctions, not just particles.

Diamonds. “Diamonds,” as the deBeers folks love to remind us, “are forever,” like souls.

Although Buckminster Fuller’s soul was something different…

Not all carbon, of course, is in organic molecules. Carbonate rocks, for example, and good old Carbon dioxide are inorganic carbon compounds.

I’ve wondered, on and off over the years, whether there’s any connection between the complex silicate chains and the hypothesis that clays (often largely complex silicates) formed a ‘template’ for the origin of complex organic compounds leading to life.

[Busy_Scissors]

@Polycarp

I’ve wondered, on and off over the years, whether there’s any connection between the complex silicate chains and the hypothesis that clays (often largely complex silicates) formed a ‘template’ for the origin of complex organic compounds leading to life.

This is a very interesting area, but one that sort of stands alone and needs more work AFAICT. Cairns-Smith (the originator of this idea) has retired now, but he wrote a review relatively recently in *Chemistry - A European Jorunal *that summarised a lot of his ideas. Rare to see such a speculative piece in a mainstream chemistry journal, but I think the originality of his ideas accords them a lot of respect.

Origin of life stuff can be very high impact science (obviously), but it’s extremely difficult to fund. Doubly so if you’re working on a hypothesis outside of the mainstream. I know a couple of chemists who were undergrads at Glasgow in the 60s and said Cairns-Smith was an inspirational teacher, but there was no way in hell they were going near his research for graduate work. 3 years up to your elbows in clay minerals looking for evidence of evolution is a tough road to a PhD.