Upon development of a workflow to analyze (±)-Verapamil and its metabolites using differential mobility spectrometry (DMS), we noticed that the ionogram of protonated Verapamil consisted of two peaks. This was inconsistent with its metabolites, as each exhibited only a single peak in the respective ionograms. The unique behaviour of Verapamil was attributed to protonation at its tertiary amino moiety, which generated a stereogenic quaternary amine. The introduction of additional chirality upon N-protonation of Verapamil renders four possible stereochemical configurations for the protonated ion: ( R,R ), ( S,S ), ( R,S ), or ( S,R ). The ( R,R )/( S,S ) and ( R,S )/( S,R ) enantiomeric pairs are diastereomeric and thus exhibit unique conformations that are resolvable by linear and differential ion mobility techniques. Protonation-induced chirality appears to be a general phenomenon, as N -protonation of 12 additional chiral amines generated diastereomers that were readily resolved by DMS.
https://ift.tt/3Jm8Pzf
Hi, can someone explain to me how to determine the R S configuration of the carbon bearing the alcohol? I understand how to do the chiral carbon bearing the methyl, it is (S).
https://preview.redd.it/ktil0gs4cry71.png?width=191&format=png&auto=webp&s=f2fb49ee60879d88a8b1366e3b8ec5967baa394a
PART II
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loschmidt%27s_paradox
Loschmidt's paradox, also known as the reversibility paradox, irreversibility paradox or Umkehreinwand,[1] is the objection that it should not be possible to deduce an irreversible process from time-symmetric dynamics. This puts the time reversal symmetry of (almost) all known low-level fundamental physical processes at odds with any attempt to infer from them the second law of thermodynamics which describes the behaviour of macroscopic systems. Both of these are well-accepted principles in physics, with sound observational and theoretical support, yet they seem to be in conflict, hence the paradox.
The Big Bang
Another way of dealing with Loschmidt's paradox is to see the second law as an expression of a set of boundary conditions, in which our universe's time coordinate has a low-entropy starting point: the Big Bang. From this point of view, the arrow of time is determined entirely by the direction that leads away from the Big Bang, and a hypothetical universe with a maximum-entropy Big Bang would have no arrow of time. The theory of cosmic inflation tries to give reason why the early universe had such a low entropy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPT_symmetry
Charge, parity, and time reversal symmetry is a fundamental symmetry of physical laws under the simultaneous transformations of charge conjugation (C), parity transformation (P), and time reversal (T). CPT is the only combination of C, P, and T that is observed to be an exact symmetry of nature at the fundamental level.[[1
... keep reading on reddit ➡Basically, if I am given a random substance which I know the formula of, is there a procedure I can do to check if there are left and/or right handed versions of its molecule in the substance (assume the substance is perfectly pure), without prior knowledge it can be chiral in the first place?
If I can identify this, is there a way to check the proportions of left : right isomers (e.g: 54% left 46% right)?
I got this question:
https://preview.redd.it/sxd3ap9dt8r71.jpg?width=919&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=95ed79351b7154915e34cf192819b66432821340
My explanation: the molecule is meso since it has a plane of symmetry, so it is an achiral molecule.
Solution from book: in terms of chair conformation, there is a 50:50 equilibrium mixture in both chair conformation, so it is racemic mixture. Which I understand since 1 CH3 must be in axial and another must be in equatorial.
Would like to ask whether both explanations are acceptable here?
Hello guys, I am looking for an advanced level book that speaks in a very comprehensive way about chirality (it is to say it contains also the information about non carbon stereogenic centers, prochirality and heterotopic faces) and that also contains exercises with solutions. A list of book would fit as well. Any advice is appreciated!!!
Would greatly appreciate it if anyone knows how grading works for chemical chirality with dr hill and if anyone has grade cutoffs for previous years!
Next day it grew square roots
I coulda sworn it was from early birth control pills that didn't work and then cause birth defects but now im not sure and i can't find it on google. Orgo was 20 years ago for me :p
A recent paper by Borovik, Kocsis, and Kondratiev on arXiv called "Mathematics and Mathematics Education in the 21st Century" talks about a new crisis in mathematics. They say in the abstract
>Mathematics enters the period of change unprecedented in its history, perhaps even a revolution: a switch to use of computers as assistants and checkers in production of proofs. This requires rethinking traditional approaches to mathematics education which is struggling through a crisis of its own, socio-economic and political by its nature. The mathematical community faces Pandora's box of problems, which, surprisingly, are not usually discussed in any connected form. The present paper attempts to address this issue in a bit more joint and cohesive way.
It is a 22-page paper, which I suggest you read if you want! But I will highlight some points that they make:
- Cutting-edge mathematical research is moving farther and farther away from stagnating mathematics education (worldwide).
- Robots for proof solving are needed! The length and complexity of many very important proofs are "reaching the limits of human comprehension." Thus, without pivoting to computer-based proof assistance and the way math is taught, it is "likely to enter a spiral of decay".
- In Section 3, they lay out exactly why proof assistants are going to be crucial for students. If this happens, we should expect (I am quoting here)
- mathematics will start re-converging with the theoretical computer science
- some mathematical disciplines may change language to an equivalent one, which is more suitable for use with the new technology
- new directions of research in mathematics, including those relevant to exogenous 21st century challenges such as climate change and the environment, are likely to be developed from the bottom-up in new, proof-assistants-friendly ways
- They then lay out the issues for mathematics education in two sections that are regarding the increasing role of abstraction needed for students due to AutoMath and the socio-economic environment due to the financial ability of certain schools and universities.
- In the next two sections, the authors take a stab at talking about the "systematic attack" on abstract mathematical thinking and then defending abstract thought in the next section. They write: "The other end of the mathematics spectrum—the elementary mathematics in schools—is under attack from certa
Hello all. So, the thing is that I have to build a cyclo-peptide (ligand molecule) for doing Molecular Dynamics simulation. I am using "Avogadro 1.2.0" (Windows) for that purpose.
In this cyclo-peptide, all residues should be in "L" conformation (L-Amino acids), except one residue which has to be in "D" conformation (D-Amino acid).
Can anybody tell me how to build the molecule in Avogadro considering the chirality at each alpha-Carbon?
Any help is appreciated. If some other software is required then please suggest that too.
Thanks
Would it be possible to switch the chirality of a 3D object by folding it through a 4th spatial dimension?
This idea occurred to me when considering that rotating a 2D "p"-shaped object within the 2D plane can never generate a "q"-shape (a mirror image of the original) when viewed from a point "above" the plane. Only by rotating through a 3rd dimension can we 'turn the "p" over' and get a "q".
Abstracting up a dimension (or attempting to)...
An object with chirality (your right hand, e.g.) can never be rotated in 3-space such that it resembles the object with complementary chirality (the mirror image, your left hand). But, perhaps, by rotating it through a 4th dimension, we could swap the chirality, just as the "p" could swap to its mirror image (the "q") by rotating through the 3rd.
I can't visualize this process at all and have no idea if this even makes sense, any thoughts?
Are there any Feynman diagrams with more information in them? I was reading literature about e+L and e-R interactions with the Higgs Field and wanted to see if there were any more granular diagrams for electrons or other leptons. Then realized this would be really useful for many other reasons to adorn more information into Feynman diagrams, certainly I’m not the first to think this.
Welcome to our weekly feature, Ask Anything Wednesday - this week we are focusing on Engineering, Mathematics, Computer Science
Do you have a question within these topics you weren't sure was worth submitting? Is something a bit too speculative for a typical /r/AskScience post? No question is too big or small for AAW. In this thread you can ask any science-related question! Things like: "What would happen if...", "How will the future...", "If all the rules for 'X' were different...", "Why does my...".
Asking Questions:
Please post your question as a top-level response to this, and our team of panellists will be here to answer and discuss your questions. The other topic areas will appear in future Ask Anything Wednesdays, so if you have other questions not covered by this weeks theme please either hold on to it until those topics come around, or go and post over in our sister subreddit /r/AskScienceDiscussion , where every day is Ask Anything Wednesday! Off-theme questions in this post will be removed to try and keep the thread a manageable size for both our readers and panellists.
Answering Questions:
Please only answer a posted question if you are an expert in the field. The full guidelines for posting responses in AskScience can be found here. In short, this is a moderated subreddit, and responses which do not meet our quality guidelines will be removed. Remember, peer reviewed sources are always appreciated, and anecdotes are absolutely not appropriate. In general if your answer begins with 'I think', or 'I've heard', then it's not suitable for /r/AskScience.
If you would like to become a member of the AskScience panel, please refer to the information provided here.
Past AskAnythingWednesday posts can be found here. Ask away!
I am asking this question because I have recently graduated with a bachelors in mathematics and plan to attend graduate school in the fall. However, when I tell people of my degree/plans I typically get a very negative response. Something along the lines of "Why in the world would you wanna do that to yourself" or "I hated math growing up." It doesn't bother me too much because I am well aware of people's opinions on math, but I don't know any other field/major where people react similarly. I am just wondering if anyone else has to deal with anything similar and how do you react?
What's his standing in the mathematician community? Is he widely known among students and professors? Was he internally awarded the 'balls of steel' award? :D What's the general opinion here?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Perelman#Fields_Medal_and_Millennium_Prize
Gus owns Los Pollos Hermanos to launder money. Walter White owns A1A Car Wash to launder money. Same fake tone when talking to their illegal colleagues.
Gus falls when his partner dies and Walter falls when his brother in law dies.
Gus throws up in Season 4 and Walter White throws up in Season 5B in the same way
Gus meets with his arch enemy , pretending it’s for business, and ends up killing Don Eladio and all his men at once as an act of revenge for killing his partner. Don Eladio dies in the same way Gus’ partner dies (in the pool). Gus poisons himself. Walter White meets with Jack and kills all of his men at once as an act of revenge for killing Hank. Jack dies in the same way Hank dies (gets shot in mid sentence). Walter shoots himself. Both saved Jesse as well.
They both wear glasses 🤓
If any!
For example, the collatz conjecture would probably be an easy one people find counterintuitive.
Seems simple enough lol...
Although it can be any aspect!
Is it possible for a secondary or tertiary amine to be considered as a chiral center? Ot does only have 3 substituends, but can the full orbital be considered as one too, making it chiral? Or is it able to freely switch places with another substituend making it achiral?
Hi everyone, I'm a recent revert who is very interested in mathematics, I find it to be an incredibly beautiful subject, and I was having the following question: Did Allah swt create mathematical truth or is it an inherent part of existence? Meaning, does 1+1=2 because Allah wills it, or does 1+1=2 because it couldn't be any other way? Alternatively, could Allah swt say 1+1=3 and make it so? Another question that is related is, did mathematics always exist as it is, just like Allah swt, or did he create it at some point? And is he constrained by the laws of logic and by mathematics? Astaghfirullah if the last question is shirk, it does feel a bit dangerous but I can't help but wonder.
My thoughts are the following, but they are just my layman thoughts which is why I'm asking people who know better in the first place:
It can be argued that 1+1=2 is obvious and it couldn't be any other way. At the same time, the more complicated mathematics gets, the more profound the beauty in its patterns. When seemingly unrelated parts of mathematics converge, when terms cancel out miraculously, when the same constants appear in all sorts of different problems, that makes me think this beauty couldn't come from anywhere but Allah. But these two observations are contradictory. After all, the more complicated things build on the simpler ones, we can't say that 1+1=2 is obvious but its more complicated consequences are the work of Allah. It all has to be one way or the other. Or at least so I think
Thoughts and rulings on the matter?
Seriously, my 9 year old brother grasped number system in a day and was able to solve problems.
I want to learn advanced maths. Do you think that it's possible for me to learn? Since basic mathematics concepts are taking so much time?
I am a grown adult who has serious problems with problem solving, processing speed, understanding concepts and using the knowledge I learn to solve problems.
I won’t be entertaining opposing views.
Do you have any specific reasons to support your response? how interesting is the subject when compared with other topics?
Hi! I'm a MCB (not premed) major incoming with AP Chem credit. While I am an MCB major, I do want to make my major a little more chemistry-focused because I really like chemistry, so I've been considering taking Chemical Chirality for my orgo lab instead of Intro Orgo lab. It seems like a really interesting course, but I'd like a second opinion on taking Chemical Chirality.
How does Chemical Chirality compare to Intro Orgo lab (in terms of difficulty, fun, time commitment, etc.)? Is it tricky to get Chemical Chirality on your schedule as a non-chemistry major? For those of you who took Chemical Chirality, did you think it was worth it?
)