in what way is a hand non-superimposable on its mirror image? do you mean on the other hand? because an image seen in a mirror is inherently superimposable upon its mirror image from at least one angle...that's what makes it a mirror image. and if you mean superimposable without reversal, then i am interested to hear of something natural that IS. only symmetrical objects would be, and they would have to be perfectly symmetrical, which is rare if even existent, other than by technologically synthetic means.
and all of this would lead to explaining the alice quote, i suppose. but why bring in obscure vocabulary to hint at a simple, yet often over-looked reality? does the word chiral add to the explanation, or turn off those uninterested in jargon and specialization? much as many won't read my comment because it is long-winded and reasonably pointless, will many continue your thought process and become interested in the questions it engenders?
a hand can superimpose on its mirror image only if the palm of the reflection touches the palm of the original. same thing goes for a helix structure. "superimposable without reversal" is what achiral refers to. nothing can truly match in reality. yes. hence the arena of theory and symbols for those who care for it. in which case--circles, hexagons, squares, etc are achiral. i like obscure vocabulary. i like normal words as well. i don't like obscure vocabulary. i don't like normal words as well. words are symbols for larger definitions. jargon turns some people off. some people are interested enough to comment. (yeah and thank you.)
2 comments:
in what way is a hand non-superimposable on its mirror image? do you mean on the other hand? because an image seen in a mirror is inherently superimposable upon its mirror image from at least one angle...that's what makes it a mirror image. and if you mean superimposable without reversal, then i am interested to hear of something natural that IS. only symmetrical objects would be, and they would have to be perfectly symmetrical, which is rare if even existent, other than by technologically synthetic means.
and all of this would lead to explaining the alice quote, i suppose. but why bring in obscure vocabulary to hint at a simple, yet often over-looked reality? does the word chiral add to the explanation, or turn off those uninterested in jargon and specialization? much as many won't read my comment because it is long-winded and reasonably pointless, will many continue your thought process and become interested in the questions it engenders?
i just farted. in the lab.
a hand can superimpose on its mirror image only if the palm of the reflection touches the palm of the original. same thing goes for a helix structure.
"superimposable without reversal" is what achiral refers to. nothing can truly match in reality. yes. hence the arena of theory and symbols for those who care for it. in which case--circles, hexagons, squares, etc are achiral.
i like obscure vocabulary. i like normal words as well. i don't like obscure vocabulary. i don't like normal words as well. words are symbols for larger definitions. jargon turns some people off. some people are interested enough to comment. (yeah and thank you.)
Post a Comment