Talk:Chirality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Large molecules 2 Disadvantagous ordering & other issues 3 contradiction 4 are single bonds chiral?

[edit] Large molecules

Molecules do not have to be large to be chiral. H Padleckas 07:36, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disadvantagous ordering & other issues

Chirality appears in many more contexts than those mentioned and the additional keywords mathematics, physics and chemistry (particularly latter two) are not explicit enough in relation to their current contents.

In short:

• The physics section actually only covers nuclear physics, neglecting other areas like general optics, carbon nanotubes, metamaterials and astronomy.
  • Solution 1: Rename Chirality (physics) to Chirality (nuclear physics) and create more sections to cover the other fields.
  • Solution 2: Restructure Chirality (physics) completely to include all fields.

• Chemistry discusses physics and optics related issues; cross-linking is needed.

• For biological systems, as well the human body, chiral structures are of paramount importance and enantiomers differ inherently in their behaviour. Paragraph or section are needed.

• Generally, the division of chirality into separate fields without extensive cross-linking is problematic for one obvious platitude: The mathematical basis allows physical modelling and considerations which are thereafter applied in most major natural sciences...

• Finally, the history of the word (going back to Lord Kelvin, 1894 and 1904) needs to be explained.

This briefly to hopefully spark some discussion on a concept all involved parties can agree upon and motivate further additions.

--Cigno 22:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

the page on chirality assumes the fermions are massless and thereby avoids the discussion of the difference between chirality and helicity i think this is important and confusing and should be a primary topic on the page -john

i dont know what the copyright rules are here, but good references include Introduction to Elementary Particle Physics by David Griffiths pg 331-332 and the spinor review in arXiv:hep-ph/0505105 pg 17-21 -john

To complicate the story still further, chilarity is also an important property in the philosophy of space. It plays a role in a debate that began with Kant and is still relevant in contemporary philosophy. The disambiguation page is a problem, primarily because their is no ambiguity to the word 'chilarity'. It seems right that its various uses have separate pages (e.g. chilarity in mathematics will not be easily understood by the lay reader, so shouldn't, at least in any detailed way, be part of an introduction to the topic). But instead of a disambiguation page, I've been consider writing an article with a discipline neutral introduction to chilarity and separate and brief sections on its relevance to each field, with the usual 'See main article ...' links. I've started some diagrams (User:Dast/Drafts) and should be able to write the introduction perhaps in April, but I'll need help with writing clear summaries of, for example, chilarity's relevance to chemistry. Any thoughts? Dast 14:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

No thoughts? I'm very reluctant to make any changes without some agreement. Dast 11:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] contradiction

Article first states that an object is chiral if it "differs" from its mirror image; "such objects then... are mirror images of each other." ? If it differs from its mirror image, then they aren't mirror images, are they? Chirality seems to be defined as an "asymmetry property", doesn't it? Sorry but I'm much too busy to wade through the labrynthine complexities of the editing and dialog processes' instructions! Can you simplify that as well? (Anonymous)

Anon, thanks for your truly constructive criticism! I think I've fixed the problem. Let me know if you still spot a problem, and feel free to try to edit the article yourself--c'mon, the editing process is not "labyrinthine"! Pan Dan 22:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually it wasn't contradictory before, just confusing. Enantiomorphs are mirror images of each other, and they are different from each other. That's not a contradiction. Pan Dan 13:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] are single bonds chiral?

This web page tells me something different than I was taught at university. Your example of a chiral centre has only single bonds. This means that it is completely unfixed. Single bonds are completely open to rotation, therefore they violate "non-superimposable mirror image". Poke the molecule and the bond will twirl. Only double bonds or benzene rings, for example, can be part of a chiral center. But, I am only an analytical chemist, I do not profess to know a huge amount about theory. I want to initiate discussion so that we can be sure that we are giving correct information to the "lay people". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krista.klw (talk • contribs) 21:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)