Might this have to do with the issue of baryon asymmetry in cosmology? The universe contains more matter than antimatter (else nothing would exist, they would annihilate each other), yet the big bang should have yielded an equal amount of both. Maybe this was a more fundamental origin to this asymmetry, but it still doesnt explain the phenomenon...
0:25 You are comparing single objects (a table, and a chair) with 2 objects (2 sandals). Is that a valid comparison? If you bisect the chair using the plane you showed, then the 2 resulting objects would be chiral: non-superimposable mirror images of each other. On the other hand, if you took the two sandals and bonded them together side by side to make them a single object, then what resulted would have a plane of symmetry down the middle ... like the chair and table do.
Hi Tony, you are making a valid point: if you split the sofa into two parts, you get two chiral objects. Interesting! Also with the sandals. If you glom them together, you get a non-chiral object. In chemistry, if you bond two chiral molecules together, you get DIASTEREOMERS, not enantiomers. The point I was making at 0:25 was that there are a lot of symmetrical objects lying around, but not everything is symmetrical. The proper definition of chirality is at 1:02, and this states that an object and its mirror image may or may not be superimposable. If they are superimposable, then they are not chiral. If you take a sandal and make its mirror image, you will see that they are not superimposable and therefore chiral. Back to the sofa and chair. If you make a mirror image of C2 symmetric chair, the mirror image will be superimposable. They are not chiral. Same with a symmetrical sofa. The sofa and its mirror image are identical. They are not chiral either.
@@ScienceSketch I think you should have: 1) Taken the chair (or table) and, after showing it has an internal plane of symmetry, showed its mirror image, and shown that the two are superimposable. 2) Started with a single sandal - say the left one - and showed that it does not have an internal plane of symmetry, then showed that its mirror image - the right one - is non-superimposable on the left one.
I don't understand, you just made a video to explain homochirality only to say we have no idea. There is one obvious explanation, it was designed that way, and it couldn't have come about by random processes.
All the signs in the world are still not enough for those that get deceived by the life of this world. God created us and his signs are everywhere and we should worship God alone as muslims
Literally just "IDK, therefore god". If scientists took this approach whenever they encountered an unexplained or unexpected result, we'd barely have advanced past the agrarian age. Not knowing the answer means we do our best to learn; we don't just give up & say a magic sky being did it.
@@creativenametbd1307 No one has just given up. In fact, just the opposite is true. We have done our best to learn and we've come to realize, based on everything we know about chemistry - and we do know a lot about chemistry by now - that there is absolutely no way that homochirality could have arisen by itself. Something that we do not understand must have been involved. As Sherlock Holmes often said, "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
@@thechiralkid6349 "Something we do not understand" is very different from the claim of some sort of intelligent design. It's simply disingenuous to imply that anything we can't currently explain must be the result of some sort of supernatural event. Nor is it fair to say that there is "no way" homochirality could happen via natural mechanisms; current uncertainty does not inherently equate to permanent ignorance. Scientific knowledge is not static, it is a constantly growing body of understanding.
@@creativenametbd1307 I'm certainly not saying that homochirality couldn't happen via natural mechanisms. It happened in nature, so it must have happened by a natural mechanism. I'm just saying that it couldn't have happened by any mechanism we now understand. And homochirality isn't the only problem in understanding how life began. How was a genetic code created? How can the code be smart enough to direct cell reproduction, and to create ribosomes to produce proteins, and to have all the tRNAs available to let the ribosomes produce proteins, and to have ATP synthase everywhere to produce ATP, etc., etc. I certainly hope we don't have permanent ignorance. I would really like to see some answers but nothing we know so far comes anywhere close. If (when?) we ever do find any of the answers, it will be truly amazing!
How can you demonstrate that a supernatural explanation is an actual possibility? You would have to first demonstrate the existence of the supernatural before it could be considered a candidate explanation.
@@hammalammadingdong6244 do you have people who love you? Have you ever requested that they demonstrate to you that they love you? Probably crazy questions. Some things belong to the perceptual world. Actually, most of our lives, we live by intuition and not by a formula, a statistic or some calculus, or by proof. As The Great wrote, men are typically not convinced by evidence, but what they find attractive so this all belongs in the world of your hearts perception.
@@wiltonpt1 "this all belongs in the world of your hearts perception." The heart is a muscular organ that pumps blood through the body, it does not perceive.
@@TonyTigerTonyTiger what if you change the word heart to mind. Does it get any better because the mind is immaterial. It’s been Refered to as an epiphenomenon. There’s no biology to it. Yet it governs the brain.
Great content. Highly illuminating!
Thanks for your kind comments.
Thank you for making homochirality more eazy to understand
Your illustrations are very fine.
Might this have to do with the issue of baryon asymmetry in cosmology? The universe contains more matter than antimatter (else nothing would exist, they would annihilate each other), yet the big bang should have yielded an equal amount of both. Maybe this was a more fundamental origin to this asymmetry, but it still doesnt explain the phenomenon...
0:25 You are comparing single objects (a table, and a chair) with 2 objects (2 sandals). Is that a valid comparison? If you bisect the chair using the plane you showed, then the 2 resulting objects would be chiral: non-superimposable mirror images of each other. On the other hand, if you took the two sandals and bonded them together side by side to make them a single object, then what resulted would have a plane of symmetry down the middle ... like the chair and table do.
Hi Tony, you are making a valid point: if you split the sofa into two parts, you get two chiral objects. Interesting! Also with the sandals. If you glom them together, you get a non-chiral object. In chemistry, if you bond two chiral molecules together, you get DIASTEREOMERS, not enantiomers. The point I was making at 0:25 was that there are a lot of symmetrical objects lying around, but not everything is symmetrical. The proper definition of chirality is at 1:02, and this states that an object and its mirror image may or may not be superimposable. If they are superimposable, then they are not chiral. If you take a sandal and make its mirror image, you will see that they are not superimposable and therefore chiral. Back to the sofa and chair. If you make a mirror image of C2 symmetric chair, the mirror image will be superimposable. They are not chiral. Same with a symmetrical sofa. The sofa and its mirror image are identical. They are not chiral either.
@@ScienceSketch I think you should have:
1) Taken the chair (or table) and, after showing it has an internal plane of symmetry, showed its mirror image, and shown that the two are superimposable.
2) Started with a single sandal - say the left one - and showed that it does not have an internal plane of symmetry, then showed that its mirror image - the right one - is non-superimposable on the left one.
Excellent
Awesome. Liked and subbed.
Good video! Thanks!
I don't understand, you just made a video to explain homochirality only to say we have no idea. There is one obvious explanation, it was designed that way, and it couldn't have come about by random processes.
All the signs in the world are still not enough for those that get deceived by the life of this world. God created us and his signs are everywhere and we should worship God alone as muslims
Literally just "IDK, therefore god". If scientists took this approach whenever they encountered an unexplained or unexpected result, we'd barely have advanced past the agrarian age. Not knowing the answer means we do our best to learn; we don't just give up & say a magic sky being did it.
@@creativenametbd1307 No one has just given up. In fact, just the opposite is true. We have done our best to learn and we've come to realize, based on everything we know about chemistry - and we do know a lot about chemistry by now - that there is absolutely no way that homochirality could have arisen by itself. Something that we do not understand must have been involved. As Sherlock Holmes often said, "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
@@thechiralkid6349 "Something we do not understand" is very different from the claim of some sort of intelligent design. It's simply disingenuous to imply that anything we can't currently explain must be the result of some sort of supernatural event. Nor is it fair to say that there is "no way" homochirality could happen via natural mechanisms; current uncertainty does not inherently equate to permanent ignorance. Scientific knowledge is not static, it is a constantly growing body of understanding.
@@creativenametbd1307 I'm certainly not saying that homochirality couldn't happen via natural mechanisms. It happened in nature, so it must have happened by a natural mechanism. I'm just saying that it couldn't have happened by any mechanism we now understand. And homochirality isn't the only problem in understanding how life began. How was a genetic code created? How can the code be smart enough to direct cell reproduction, and to create ribosomes to produce proteins, and to have all the tRNAs available to let the ribosomes produce proteins, and to have ATP synthase everywhere to produce ATP, etc., etc. I certainly hope we don't have permanent ignorance. I would really like to see some answers but nothing we know so far comes anywhere close. If (when?) we ever do find any of the answers, it will be truly amazing!
Great Content!
Thank you very much!
I liked the candidness of. “ we do not know”. It is possible that this is impossible to happen but by a supernatural force.
How can you demonstrate that a supernatural explanation is an actual possibility? You would have to first demonstrate the existence of the supernatural before it could be considered a candidate explanation.
@@hammalammadingdong6244 do you have people who love you? Have you ever requested that they demonstrate to you that they love you? Probably crazy questions. Some things belong to the perceptual world. Actually, most of our lives, we live by intuition and not by a formula, a statistic or some calculus, or by proof. As The Great wrote, men are typically not convinced by evidence, but what they find attractive so this all belongs in the world of your hearts perception.
@@wiltonpt1 OK, but that didn't answer the question.
@@wiltonpt1 "this all belongs in the world of your hearts perception."
The heart is a muscular organ that pumps blood through the body, it does not perceive.
@@TonyTigerTonyTiger what if you change the word heart to mind. Does it get any better because the mind is immaterial. It’s been Refered to as an epiphenomenon. There’s no biology to it. Yet it governs the brain.
One big fairytale