StrengtheningSagaciousness

Chirality

 

Perchance those who do not understand its precisely defined meaning might like to look it up?

 

Then perhaps the OP could get on and state whatever it is he actually want to say.

This is sort of an exploration into symmetry (with the belief that all is symmetrical and anything observed to not have perfect symmetry must have a counterpart beyond current view)

The implications of what came to me in a dream are nothing short of insane, but its echoes ring louder and louder everyday.

If I knew excactly what it is I wanted to say, there would be no need for the question. Equally, if I could perfectly describe the question it surely would contain the answer within merely speaking it.

If you haven't yet read this article, I urge you to do so. If you don't understand a definition, look it up and research it's use in context.

This is an excerpt from ^^^^^^^ (the article) which basically sums up what I am after:

A primary aim of science is the elimination of

arbitrariness by the discovery of intelligible reason

for everything being as it is and not otherwise.

But no-one has yet conceived ,a sufficient reason

for a fundamental or general chiral bias, say in

favour of left-handed forms. So, if a bias has been

found in any realm, the natural inference has been

that it is due to some contingent local effect and

that structures with the opposite bias may exist

elsewhere in the universe. <-------------(Where might they exist?)

Here is an interesting video which I think provides a very important aspect to take into consideration. Pay close attention at about 4 minutes into the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZXme8FHe0o

Any thoughts?

In 1975, an article was published titled, "Chirality". Many more examples have been found since then.

 

Chirality

 

The article stated there was a left-hand bias. The final paragraph contained the following: "Thus there are indications that the role of chirality in the universe, or at least on this Earth, may be greater than has yet been understood. This accords with the view often put forward that greater attention should be paid to asymmetries as the necessary initiators of processes."

I love it!!!!

This article very deeply elaborates on the problem. Thank you very much FrankM for bringing this into the thread!!

In so many fields of applied sciences this property is regarded as a rule but for the purpose of this topic it remains a question.

The biased direction of nature is crucial to the order which enables all things to exist. Without this property all would be chaos and static.

Supposing that there exists a mirrored realm where all chiral rotations observed here on earth would rotate in the opposite direction, I hereby encourage future posts to explore the possibilities for "where the mirror exists?"

But chirality is not a quantum matter so why mix the two?

We could call it the Right-Hand-Rule but this only describes its function.

Another possibility would be circular polarization but still does not explain the biased direction of rotation.

I'm open to using a more appropriate term if anyone has a suggestion.

Strengthening Sagactiousness although your post#9 quotes my post#8 and purports to be a response to it I can't see any direct relationship between the two.

 

I was trying to listen to you, but are you listening to me?

When I happened upon the term chirality I was actually researching the biased direction of spin of a current induced magnetic field. Even though it is defined as an effect in the "quantum" world, I believe that what we think is a quantum or "closed system" isn't as closed as we have been taught with most recent common understandings.

Sorry if it seems I had put your question on the back burner... I felt compelled to bring in some history to show the basis for my views on the quantum uncertainty before elaborating on specific definitions which could be affected.

I really didn't understand the relationship between the title of your initial post and your post#1.

 

Chirality is not a quantum matter.

 

It's most significant effects on humanity have been in the fields of chemistry and biochemistry where the the lack of appreciation of chirality of certain molecules has lead undesirable effects.

 

The spin quantum number on the other hand is only to do with quantum mechanics, and further really has little or nothing to do with classical mechanical rotation.

Albert Einstein advanced the very uncertain "quantum theory" into the brain of Max Planck. Planck, without even fully understanding what he had his hands on, was hungry for his own Nobel Prize. At the same time, the scientific community was so excited with the new general theory of relativity which covered the macrocosm, they immediately opened the doors to accept the first theory which would set the fundamental stage for study into the microcosm. What Planck had discovered, while tugging on the shirts of giants, may have only been so deeply accepted because it made the most sense to world which was all too eager to finish the puzzle.

Quantum theory may have proven itself accurate enough times to be accepted, but no theory should be 100% TRUSTED.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnNsswDgoGg

Looks like we may be going back to a wave mechanics standing.

The value of spin for an elementary particle depends only on the type of particle, and cannot be altered in any known way. Also spin is a quantum property, in that it assumes integer or half integer values. It can't gradually decrease from a value of 1 to -1, passing through 0 at the plane of the galaxy.

First of all, an electron is only "generally thought to be an elementary particle", and furthermore when a particle is said to have half integer value of spin, that only means that it has been observed that such particles must rotate 720 degrees to return to an identical state.......

Referring to the Heisenberg principle:

An accurately observed spin is relative to what vantage point?

If viewed from the sun, the earth appears to complete 1 spin in 24 hours, but what if viewed from the moon?

Perhaps the invisible mass in which the electron inhabits is opposite spinning at half speed, thus creating the illusion of half-spin.

Is it certain that the observed spin has a vantage point in-line with a stationary axis?

What exactly makes it a quantum property?

I find it very un-scientific that some individuals draw up a fact out of theory as soon as evidence is presented, such as data coming from the CERN project, show it as "probable" and suddenly the whole world accepts it as common or traditional knowledge. Traditional knowledge and traditional thinking means to discourage individuals to back-track in their understandings. Where true science exists, tradition does not.

All traditional common understandings, scientifically, are subject to change.

Absolutely, the only one absolute fact is that nothing is absolute at all.

I don't mean to challenge the whole world, I only mean to compare visions with most current understandings.

Thanks for reading:)

A recent vision: As an electron travels away from point of perspective, it produces a circular magnetic field around it which has always been observed to have an anti-clockwise rotation also known as "chirality". Perhaps this is common to a biased direction of spin of the electron in motion with its axis being in the direction of travel.

Perhaps this spin we observe wouldn't happen at all if it weren't for the local rotating gravitational field of our galaxy.

Perhaps at our galaxy's center is a black hole or magnetic anomaly which creates a quadripolar magnetic field with the galactic plane being north and its poles being south.

Perhaps if we were to cross to the other side of the galactic plane everything that appears to exhibit chirality would spin the opposite direction.

This makes more sense to me than a universal chirality.

Perhaps a galaxy's dark rift along the galactic plane is dark due to a neutral influence of spin forces which actually influences spinning photons to stop spinning altogether.

Perhaps the farther the photon travels away from a spinning gravitational/magnetic field, the less spinning it does and eventually doesn't..... until it re-enters a spinning field which once again increases it's amplitude of spin and it goes from potential photon back to observable photon..... After all, isn't it only within a gravitational field (from which we know creates spin) we scratch our heads trying to figure out the spin of the electron inappropriately as a universal anomaly?

Sorry for the vagueness and bouncing around. I'm still interpreting and refining a recent vision.

Could dark energy simply be energy which has lost it's spin? Possibly that the energy has traveled outside the gravity of a galactic system and therefore is no longer induced to spin.

Farsight's including many others'. I'm specifically referring to chirality.

A recent vision: The farther the electron travels away from mass the less twisting and turning happens. After all, isn't it gravity which induces this effect within it's field?

More so, if a galaxy is quadri-polar, and an electron crosses over the galactic plane does it twist the other way? Any thoughts? Anybody know of similar current studies on this?

I'm wondering if the farther the electron travels away from mass into the vacuum the less twisting and turning happens. More so, if a galaxy is quadri-polar, and an electron crosses over the galactic plane does it twist the other way? Any thoughts? Anybody know of similar current studies on this?