Talk:Chirality

Chemistry High‑importance

	This article 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mathematics Low‑priority

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics 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.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

Physics High‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics 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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biology Mid‑importance

	Biology portal Chirality is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Linguistics Low‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics 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.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

(On Chirality and the Universal Asymmetry)[edit]

Here is a nice 250 page book that is all about the general topic of chirality; a few dozen choice pages are available to view on Google Books. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

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)[reply]

Move done[edit]

Move done, see Talk:Chirality (disambiguation)#Re-write suggestion for discussion. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(More re books)[edit]

Earlier publication titled "Chirality" Lancelot Law Whyte Leonardo, Vol. 8, pp 245-248 Pergamon Press 1975

   http://geomsymm.cnsm.csulb.edu/courses/303/reading/whyteChirality.pdf

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)[reply]

Insufficient information in the article.[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I actually figured out by myself that the laws of electromagnetism are achiral so I won't be able to find any sources. Blackbombchu (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics achiral object is in fact chiral[edit]

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.
131.174.36.143 (talk) 15:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC) & 145.53.4.1 (talk) 12:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

   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)[reply]

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)

RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The example of human hands[edit]

"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)[reply]

I see what you mean. bd2412 T 17:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Human hands are chiral because although you can line up thumb-to-thumb and pinkie-to-pinkie, one hand will be facing left and the other right, no matter what. My problem is with the graphic of the "generic amino acid" which is said to be chiral... it's not. All one must do is transflect the right-hand amino acid by inverting the right hand, and the two molecules are indistinguishable. Therefore the example of chirality is indeed an example of achirality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.32.144 (talk) 03:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cobalt 60[edit]

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?[edit]

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)[reply]

The figure, which I recently restored, is not chiral; it is achiral, meaning that it is the same as its mirror image. Its symmetry group in orbifold notation is 2x. It is not distinguishable from its reflection in any plane, since that reflection can be moved by translation and rotation to superposition with the original. Chirality pertains to both chiral and achiral objects. Robert A. Russell 23:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Russell157 (talk • contribs)

Insufficient information about biological role[edit]

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)[reply]

Achiral image[edit]

I posted the diagram of the object as an illustration of an achiral object that has no plane or center of symmetry. It was removed on 27 Aug. 2017, with no reason given. I am willing to wager a large sum that the object is in fact achiral. Having an actual picture of an object that fits the description in the text may be helpful to those who cannot picture such an object. The fact that it may look like a swastika from a certain angle is mathematically irrelevant. The shape as pictured does not appear as a swastika. Robert A. Russell 19:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

You can find the commit from the history, and press "Undo". Adding an edit summary to the commit is always recommended. +mt 21:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did undo the removal of the diagram, but mistakenly pressed return before indicating why I had restored it. I restored it because I think it was mistakenly removed.Robert A. Russell 00:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The image has two problems. 1) It is chiral. When flipped the points face the opposite way. (I think all other rotations and translations are obvious). 2) Its projection as others have pointed out is a swastika which is unnecessary (particularly since flipping the legs would make it achiral). The argument in the talk that this "does not matter" because it is not shown as one in the image is laughable as this is a discussion of chirality, people will envision its rotations and projections.— Preceding text originally posted on Chirality (diff) by 73.109.61.9 (talk⋅contribs) 2019-07-23T13:43:29 (UTC)

You don't seem to be willing to back your claim that the image is chiral with any financial commitment. Do you really believe it is chiral?Robert A. Russell 20:58, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Death Stranding[edit]

While so-called "Chiral Networks" do exist and feature heavily in Death Stranding, I have to wonder if it's significant enough to warrant an otherwise unused "Popular culture" section containing only one line, dedicated entirely to the game. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to perhaps link to this article in the Death Stranding article? - Mexxmer (talk) 14:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After a while with no answer, I've taken the liberty of removing the "popular culture" segment of the article, in favour of simply linking to chirality from the Death Stranding article. Please revert the edit if this was out of turn. - Mexxmer (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I stopped making pages like this, asking the community's opinion on a matter. Most posts like this I see for other topics don't have a single reply after languishing for years. Hell, most talk pages don't have any new activity for years. So, I just take it upon myself to make any edits I see fit. If there's a problem, somebody can and usually will fix it. But, making a page like this, I just end up forgetting about it and then nothing gets done.

Probably something to do with the fact that Wikipedia only has 150k active users out of 38 million or so registered users. I found a breakdown of Wikipedia users once and was shocked by how few people actually contribute anything. Even just spell checking a paragraph.

The number of regular contributors is likely only a fraction of that. Even a generous 50k people would have a very hard time keeping up with the 6.7 million or so Wikis and talk pages etc.

It seems like Wikipedia should be soliciting for contributors more than donations. But if they have to be forced or incentivized to do it, they probably won't do a good job.

Thanks for your contributions. Being a Wikipedian in general is a thankless job. But I appreciate everything everyone does to keep the site going against all odds. VoidHalo (talk) 22:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]