|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 (On Chirality and the Universal Asymmetry)
- 2 Untitled
- 3 Move done
- 4 (More re books)
- 5 Insufficient information in the article.
- 6 Mathematics achiral object is in fact chiral
- 7 The example of human hands
- 8 Cobalt 60
- 9 Is chirality needed across every axis?
- 10 Insufficient information about biological role
(On Chirality and the Universal Asymmetry)
- Some additional potential sources:
- James P. Riehl, Mirror-Image Asymmetry: An Introduction to the Origin and Consequences of Chirality (2010).
- W.J. Lough, Chirality in Natural and Applied Science (2002).
- Cheers! bd2412 T 04:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Move done, see Talk:Chirality (disambiguation)#Re-write suggestion for discussion. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
(More re books)
Earlier publication titled "Chirality" Lancelot Law Whyte Leonardo, Vol. 8, pp 245-248 Pergamon Press 1975
The book by Georges Henry Wagnière, On Chirality and the Universal Asymmetry: Reflections on Image and Mirror Image (2007), uses the same quote (page 23) from the "Looking Glass" by Lewis Carroll that Whyte used in his publication. Wagnière does not cite the Whyte book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Electricworm (talk • contribs) 18:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Insufficient information in the article.
The Chemistry section of this article is incomplete. It should discuss how chiral molecules permit clockwise circularty polarized light through the substance at a different speed than counterclockwise circularly polarized light. It discusses circularly polarized light in a diagram but not how it relates to chiral molecules. The physics section is incorrect. The laws of electromagnatism are actually achiral. The direction of a magnetic field is only something we define, not something we observe. Had we defined it to point in the opposite direction, then we would observe a mirror image of all the laws of electromagnetism occuring. For instance, we use the right hand rule for how a magnet moving through a coil creates a current and the left hand rule for which way a magnetic field will go in circles around a wire with a current. If we define the magnetic field to be pointing in the opposite direction, then we would use the left hand rule for a magnet going through a coil, but we would also use the right hand rule for a current generating a magnetic field, cancelling out the effect of using the left hand rule for the other thing, thus making the laws achiral. The mirror image of a magnet going through a coil inducing a current really is possible because a magnet has spinning electrons and not a concentration of charges at one end and having the electrons spin the opposite direction would turn the north end into a south end. A south end is also something we define, not something we observe. A magnetic field is actually a relativistic effect of an electric field so there's no option of electromagnetic laws being chiral. A spinning charged particle actually generates a magnetic field for the exact same reason as a spinning object with gravity drags space time around it. Blackbombchu (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- You are free to add that information to the article if you can provide sources. Also, there is a more extensive article at Chirality (chemistry). Cheers! bd2412 T 18:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Mathematics achiral object is in fact chiral
The example of the "achiral" mathematical object is chiral. This one, when viewed from the top looks like a Swastika. I suppose the top (or bottom) part should be mirrored so the top-view looks like a figure 8.
220.127.116.11 (talk) 15:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC) & 18.104.22.168 (talk) 12:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- I note that according to the edit history, the contrib of 145.... consisted of removal of IP-editor 131....'s contrib and sig.
The same person may have (first editing as 131....), have decided the diagram in question is chiral and required a change to make it achiral, and abt 10 days later (editing as IP-editor 145...) have decided that they had initially been confused and it had been achiral all along, and tried to clean up the mess by replacing it with a sig-only text. (Alternatively, the two IP edits may have been separate people, only one of whom was confused but in any case the second feeling sure enuf to obliterate the first's contrib, heading and all.) IMO WP:AGF urges us (in either case) to forgo a witch-hunt. And both normal protocol and our confidence in the WP model should IMO favor obscuring nothing meaningful (correct or not) of the discussion that the talk page's edit-history retains.
(I haven't thot clearly enuf yet to be confident in my current view on the diagram, and hope those who are much more confident than i yet am, will find it worth contending one with other).
--Jerzy•t 08:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I've read about an object which is "topologically achiral, but rigidly chiral in its every conformation" , and the shape was called called a topological rubber glove in an webpage. (I've downloaded pdf; Molecular and Supramolecular Stereochemistry, by David M. Walba , but I could not recheck the links due to some network problem)
The example of human hands
"Human hands are perhaps the most universally recognized example of chirality: The left hand is a non-superimposable mirror image of the right hand; no matter how the two hands are oriented, it is impossible for all the major features of both hands to coincide." I think I understand what is being said here, but it isn't particularly clear, since by placing the palms together one can make all the "major features" coincide (thumb to thumb, etc.). Equinox (talk) 10:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Someone should change the cobalt link in the chirality(physics) page on the first part of the page to link to cobalt-60 instead of cobalt. I don't know how to do that. Would you please enlighten me? Thanks, SireWonton 04:00, 8 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SireWonton (talk • contribs)
Is chirality needed across every axis?
I have just a single doubt that I haven't found. The article contains this image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Orbifold_2X.2.svg and the description (of the image, not the article) states that it doesn't contain a plane of symmetry. As the article says, for an object to be chiral, it must be distingishable from its mirror image. The object from the image, however, is not distingishable if the mirror plane is the XZ plane. Can someone please clear this up? --Metapropanium (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Insufficient information about biological role
Chirality has immense significance in biomolecules, biological signals, drug-action, drug-side-effects, natural-products as well as macroscopic anatomy, cell-division, development, etc. So, please either to improve this page, provide more information about them; or re-open the page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chirality_(biology)&redirect=no RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 13:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC) (by the way, there are well-known concepts of chirality in different fields of biology, including climber plants' morphology and classification (sinistrorse and dextrorse twinners), and in animal development, sinistral and dextral cleavage planes). But I did not found any articles about them on other wiki pages). RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)