Talk:Chirality (disambiguation)

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Chemistry

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles

Large molecules[edit]

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

Disadvantagous ordering & other issues[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

contradiction[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

are single bonds chiral?[edit]

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)[reply]

Application to forensic science[edit]

The statement about forensic science astounded me and since there was no reference or link I tried searching the web for "chiral knot forensic". The two most relevant pages I found were:

This description of The Forensic Analysis of Knots and Ligatures by Robert Chisnall says that readers will learn the term "chirality" but does not make the link to left- or right-handideness of the tyer. Perhaps the book itself does? http://shop.armorforensics.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=RedWop&Product_Code=8-5072&Category_Code=81
Mike Lucas' web page mentions "knotting peculiarities which relate to an individual, such as left and right-handedness, recurring characteristics, sequence of tying." http://www.forensic-knots.co.uk/methodology.htm

Neither of these quite add up to support a link between chirality and left- or right-handedness. Is this "common knowledge" within the forensics community? I am a layman in this regard. What is Wikipedia's policy on such specialized knowledge? Before adding the "citation needed" template, I read the template page, including the part about not requiring sources for "common facts" (such as "The Moon orbits the Earth"), and skimmed the Wikipedia:Verifiability page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.15.138 (talk) 23:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-write suggestion[edit]

This article was started as a stub on the subject of chirality; it got turned into a dab page (without any discussion that I can see) a while ago, so now we don't have anything general on the subject.
We really ought to have something to explain what chirality is, as has been suggested a couple of times already (see above).
I suggest we do that now. There is a draft here, to get the ball rolling. If the idea is acceptable we should move this to chirality (disambiguation) and put a topic article here. Moonraker12 (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC) .[reply]

In support of Moonraker's excellent suggestion, here is a nice 250 page book on the general topic of chirality, with a few dozen choice pages available to view on Google Books. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Moonraker's draft is now good enough to move to mainspace. I propose moving the current disambig page to Chirality (disambiguation), and moving Mooraker's page here to work on it further. Are there any objections? bd2412 T 18:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: nice article draft. +mt 00:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! There's been no objection this past week, and no demur from the discussion here, so I'll go ahead with it. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS No luck! seeems it needs to be an admin move. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get it. bd2412 T 14:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hands[edit]

Can the term simply apply to if people are left- or right-handed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.0.249.148 (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]