Sorry if I am miles off here, because I like your style of explanation, but ... aren't you being very casual with the word reflection? I mean ... no object IS its reflection, but it's always identical to it (in a way) or its not actually its reflection . no?
Like ... you thow a mirror in ... and you use the word reflection, but ... the mirror does the square root of fuck all in your example, so why even mention the word reflection? Am I wrong? (Probably)
You're completely right on the first point about "is" and while I agree generally about the word "reflection", I am inclined to think it is overly pedantic, because actual reflection -- e.g., light bouncing off a mirror -- is (I hope) *obviously not* what we are talking about. That doesn't answer your question about why actually use this metaphor as a pedagogical aid... I do not think most people have *really* noticed chirality as a phenomenon -- daily living does not inspire us to really articulate that some objects can be super-imposed on their mirror image and some can't. In my experience, that is the main barrier to understanding this topic (people just haven't articulated/gripped that fact enough), so the raison d'etre of the video was just to bring that concept to life. I think the use of the mirror and the pretend "reflection" does, at least for some people, succeed in doing that.
I would use "complimentary"; and "reflective" & "non-reflective". Which would also replace the negative word - describing a positive reality, and vice-versa (chiral - doesn't reflect; achiral - reflects). But education is historic - so they won't change it.
@@flydia I have no recollection of typing the original comment, but looking back at it now I have no idea what I was talking about, sorry about that chief! Thanks for taking the time to reply (which I didn't notice till now, either).
Lydia my name is Cosme Souza, a brazilian chemistry student, and I'm really grateful to have come across your vídeos. Thanks to your clarifying explanations, especially about chirality. You literaĺy saved my life. God bless you. I'll stick to your vídeos from now on.
Really good explanation. Could only be improved by focussing more on "yes it IS an accurate reflection, but NO IT'S NOT identical". Also I think there were 1 or 2 too many examples of identical objects. Thanks for your dedication in putting this together, Lydia. I now understand the concept! Beautiful accent by the way!
Chi rho Cairo object? Ah its now Crystal Clear. Chiro means hand. Chi Rho is the Christogram for Christ and Cairo is the capital of Egypt. Which was built by hands so there ya go.
Two compounds with same atom composition (that you showed with coloured balls) are not always each others reflection. The position where each atom is fitted matters. If the blue is on right it should be on left in the mirror image. So saying that "after rotating if its identical to original, its mirror image" is wrong. You could put a compound in a wrong orientation (hence not a reflection) but is exactly the same after being rotated 'a few times'. Conclusion : just one complete rotation (exact opposite of reflection = original)makes a mirror image. Tho you did put your compounds' reflections very mindfully to begin with (the right way)
Emperor Imagine if the two feet were able to pass through one another and occupy the same volume of space. The hollow openings would face in opposite directions. This factor makes them chiral. Conversely and hypothetically, if the feet where not hollow, and looked the same on both sides, then such feet would be achiral.
I felt lost you when you brought purple as the last colour because I'm colour blind and can't distinguish it from blue. You were rotating it to show that they aren't identical but they look exactly the SAME to me. Good demonstration though!
Seriously, I never comment on videos but this is just so amazing and simple explanation which many of the teachers fail to give...good job keep it up 👍
I'm a NEET ( Indian medical entrance exam ) Aspirant And was struggling to understand mirror image rotation , spent hours searching in books for explanation But unable to find any , left it Now after nearly 8 months since I read it , my doubt is clear : )
Thanks for the video. I realized the way I was visualizing and rotating these objects didn't consider certain rotations such as the one at 1:24. Thanks so much! It felt like some of the answers and explanations I've gotten elsewhere were contradictory/incorrect. But, now it makes sense! My suffering is no more and I learned something new today!
Great Video! One question : I am currently reading a paper about crystallography , and more specifically about the P63/mmc . From searching I found that 3 denotes the chirality. What does this actually mean ? Thank you in advance
