Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-

Can they simulate a bacterium yet?

Name: Anonymous 2009-09-23 10:01

What I mean is, is there a computer simulation that can accurately simulate every macromolecule inside your typical e coli cell?  Using one of those deep-blue type supercomupters?

Name: Anonymous 2009-09-23 10:02

No.

And there probably never will be.

Name: Anonymous 2009-09-23 17:54

not yet, maybe now that the ati 5870 has been released we will see some progress

Name: 4tran 2009-09-24 3:49

maybe after we can simulate 2 macromolecules interacting with each other...

Name: Anonymous 2009-09-24 20:50

Okay, so not to atomic resolution yet...


What about a lower resolution?

Name: Anonymous 2009-09-25 21:12

Why would you want to simulate that?

Name: Anonymous 2009-09-25 22:19

>>6
Because then you'd be simulating life.

Name: Anonymous 2009-09-26 5:54

>>6:

>>7 is right, and I was thinking about it from the practical point of view. Basically, if you could predict the effects of a gene knockout before actually knocking out the gene, then you could better plan your experiments.

Name: Anonymous 2009-09-26 8:24

Look at the current state of protein folding simulation. That's where we are. There are lots of proteins in a cell.

I understand it that nuclear fission reactions can be simulated with quite a few more particles though, because the interactions are simpler. I suppose that when we completely understand the way molecules interact with each other, cell biology might be within reach using a higher level of abstraction.

Name: Anonymous 2009-09-26 18:04

What's the different between simulating life and creating life?

Name: Anonymous 2009-09-26 18:07

@10

Nothing.  Feeling your oats?

Name: Anonymous 2009-09-27 3:44

why would a chess computer be used to simulate bacterium?

Name: Anonymous 2009-09-27 8:28

>>11
I had to look that phrase up ๏̯͡๏) . I think it's completely inappropriate!

Name: Anonymous 2009-09-28 15:32

>>8

No you wouldn't be able to because quantum effects are random.

Name: Anonymous 2009-09-28 18:53

>>14

Not entirely.

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List