I remember first learning about chirality in my biochemistry course in college, and it was definitely a mind-blower. I had already started to understand that molecules had 3d structures, but the idea (and attempting to visualize it mentally) of mirror image molecules stretched my brain significantly.
It's also still amazing to me how people first recognized this: poking around looking at the crystals that form in the bottom of a wine under a microscope, noticing that some of them were mirror images of the other, and then seperating them manually with tweezer, dissolving them into two different solutions, and demonstrating that they rotated light in opposite directions.
"To his surprise, he noticed that each crystal has a tiny facet on one of its edges oriented sometimes to the right and sometimes to the left. He could separate them by hand with a tweezer."
It's moments like that, and Kekule's story of the snake dream for benzene that make me feel unworthy of being a scientist. I sometimes wonder: in my career of looking at things, did I miss something fundamental and significant simply because my powers of observation and general intelligence were insufficient?
Well, I don't know that every scientist has to have poetic dreams about snakes (Kekule) or apples (Newton).
Weirdly I often have dreams where I am 'solving' some problem, however on waking I realise the details are nonsense - not just the solution, but the problem itself. I think dreams are often a way to just exercise and sort memories and ideas. There is no reasoning involved.
A lot of science is just process, or multiple careful experimentation. Preparing for getting lucky is another matter.
When I first learned about recursion I could not understand it (specifically, I didn't understand how eventually you reached a termination point and popped back up the stack). I spent all day thinking and thinking and thinking. As I was falling asleep- in that sort of lucid awake-but-not-awake state, the entire program I wanted to write appeared before me in glowing letters. Some deep part of my brain woke me up, I wrote the program down, and went back to sleep.
When I woke up the next day, I compiled it, ran it, and it worked on the first try (up to the stack limit on my computer... 6 function calls deep).
Since then I've noticed that if I get super-duper obsessive about things I don't understand, insights will start to pop into my head, but at the same time, I can't really talk to other people because the human interaction part of my brain is "paged out". I kind of understand tormented geniuses better knowing that many of them also walk a fine line between human life and discovery.
Chemist here.
I read this and thought it was either lies or propaganda. But after a while of pondering , it would say that the word "homochiralic" (creation-from-nothing) does a lot of heavy lifting here to make their claim technically true, if at all:
Asymmetric synthesis was already well established before 1995. Chemists like Knowles, Noyori, Sharpless, and Evans could routinely produce highly enantioenriched molecules using chiral catalysts or auxiliaries.
What made Soai's reaction different was that it did not require an external chiral source. The chiral product catalyzes its own formation, so a tiny random imbalance can be amplified into a very large enantiomeric excess.
Other examples of abiotic asymmetry, such as Pasteur's crystallization experiments and circularly polarized light, were also known earlier.
So the Nobel press release is best understood as shorthand: Soai did not discover asymmetric synthesis, but demonstrated a remarkable form of self-amplifying, spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking in an abiotic chemical system.
That helps a lot! I'm a novice learning about enzymatic synthesis. I'm not there yet, but my assumption is the target molecules (And reactants/intermediate-products) will all have specific chiralities, unlike the chemical-synthesis ones which may produce 50/50. Everything in my data structures (And the pubchem CID / ChEBI ids they reference) are chiral.
Is it explained why, in this drawing, the right catalyst forms at a higher rate than the left? Or put another way why left/right catalyst gets formed at a higher rate than right? I’m trying to understand the why behind the amplification effect.
I have to admit that when I read the intro header of the piece on the page, “They made chemistry choose a mirror image,” it struck me as LLM-speak and I immediately lost interest. I have no idea whether the authors used one to draft that phrase, which seems like an innocent summary of their contributions, but somehow I feel like if it were three years ago we would have never seen that in the title.
Cool, brings back some memories from grad school. Always found these types of reactions with self-reenforcing quite interesting.
Reminds me of another paper where just stirring a solution or not would determine the chirality of crystals formed and gives an idea how highly chiral environments can arise from "nothing":
I remember an offhand comment from a professor in grad school about the origin of chirality in life, he said some people had speculated it had to do with parity of the electroweak force (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985Natur.318..172T/abstra...) or something like that, but it always seemed unlikely because the energy difference due to that is so tiny that it would be hard for a single or small number of events to be biased significantly in one direction.
We have matter-antimatter asymmetry in physics... and now I just learned there's a similar concept in chemistry (one variant frequently occurs in life while the other mirrored variant is rarely found in nature)
Yes, this sounds like a situation where progress in that field may have led them to go back and give more credit to the original experiments going in that direction
No, in this case neither isomer is inherently preferred, i.e. if you repeat the reaction you could end up with the opposite isomer, but in each run the symmetry is broken leading to an excess of just one.
(Though what you're saying is not impossible per se, I think I read an experimental proposal a while ago which suggested achieving just that, iirc by using parity violation to generate chiral photons which then initiate some kind of reaction!)
This is a plot point in one of my most favourite science fiction novels by Roger Zelazny... bit of a spoiler, so ROT13:
_Qbbejnlf va gur Fnaq_
which still has my favourite life situation for a protagonist (room, board, tuition and generous stipend so long as he attends his uncle's alma mater until such time as he graduates....)
As a right-handed person, I find this deeply offensive and request all left-handed life be destroyed at once!!
That said, would it be possible to make "right-handed" food that is safe to eat, satisfies the psychological urge to consume food in every sensory measure, but still contributes 0 calories?
Throughout my life as a student from elementary school to university, I’ve had so many teachers with an extremely diverse ability to actually teach that I no longer think of any subject as inherently hard or easy. I always think it’s a bad teacher or a bad textbook. When I self-studied chemistry I switched textbooks three times before I found one that really matched the way I think.
I remember first learning about chirality in my biochemistry course in college, and it was definitely a mind-blower. I had already started to understand that molecules had 3d structures, but the idea (and attempting to visualize it mentally) of mirror image molecules stretched my brain significantly.
It's also still amazing to me how people first recognized this: poking around looking at the crystals that form in the bottom of a wine under a microscope, noticing that some of them were mirror images of the other, and then seperating them manually with tweezer, dissolving them into two different solutions, and demonstrating that they rotated light in opposite directions.
Sodium-ammonium tartrate (I remembered what you were talking about, but had to look up the actual chemical!)
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9291139/
From that:
"To his surprise, he noticed that each crystal has a tiny facet on one of its edges oriented sometimes to the right and sometimes to the left. He could separate them by hand with a tweezer."
It's moments like that, and Kekule's story of the snake dream for benzene that make me feel unworthy of being a scientist. I sometimes wonder: in my career of looking at things, did I miss something fundamental and significant simply because my powers of observation and general intelligence were insufficient?
Well, I don't know that every scientist has to have poetic dreams about snakes (Kekule) or apples (Newton).
Weirdly I often have dreams where I am 'solving' some problem, however on waking I realise the details are nonsense - not just the solution, but the problem itself. I think dreams are often a way to just exercise and sort memories and ideas. There is no reasoning involved.
A lot of science is just process, or multiple careful experimentation. Preparing for getting lucky is another matter.
When I first learned about recursion I could not understand it (specifically, I didn't understand how eventually you reached a termination point and popped back up the stack). I spent all day thinking and thinking and thinking. As I was falling asleep- in that sort of lucid awake-but-not-awake state, the entire program I wanted to write appeared before me in glowing letters. Some deep part of my brain woke me up, I wrote the program down, and went back to sleep.
When I woke up the next day, I compiled it, ran it, and it worked on the first try (up to the stack limit on my computer... 6 function calls deep).
Since then I've noticed that if I get super-duper obsessive about things I don't understand, insights will start to pop into my head, but at the same time, I can't really talk to other people because the human interaction part of my brain is "paged out". I kind of understand tormented geniuses better knowing that many of them also walk a fine line between human life and discovery.
>Other than life itself, no one had achieved this feat.
Yeah, when you put it that way it sounds pretty impresive.
Chemist here. I read this and thought it was either lies or propaganda. But after a while of pondering , it would say that the word "homochiralic" (creation-from-nothing) does a lot of heavy lifting here to make their claim technically true, if at all:
Asymmetric synthesis was already well established before 1995. Chemists like Knowles, Noyori, Sharpless, and Evans could routinely produce highly enantioenriched molecules using chiral catalysts or auxiliaries.
What made Soai's reaction different was that it did not require an external chiral source. The chiral product catalyzes its own formation, so a tiny random imbalance can be amplified into a very large enantiomeric excess.
Other examples of abiotic asymmetry, such as Pasteur's crystallization experiments and circularly polarized light, were also known earlier.
So the Nobel press release is best understood as shorthand: Soai did not discover asymmetric synthesis, but demonstrated a remarkable form of self-amplifying, spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking in an abiotic chemical system.
That helps a lot! I'm a novice learning about enzymatic synthesis. I'm not there yet, but my assumption is the target molecules (And reactants/intermediate-products) will all have specific chiralities, unlike the chemical-synthesis ones which may produce 50/50. Everything in my data structures (And the pubchem CID / ChEBI ids they reference) are chiral.
Is it explained why, in this drawing, the right catalyst forms at a higher rate than the left? Or put another way why left/right catalyst gets formed at a higher rate than right? I’m trying to understand the why behind the amplification effect.
I have to admit that when I read the intro header of the piece on the page, “They made chemistry choose a mirror image,” it struck me as LLM-speak and I immediately lost interest. I have no idea whether the authors used one to draft that phrase, which seems like an innocent summary of their contributions, but somehow I feel like if it were three years ago we would have never seen that in the title.
Cool, brings back some memories from grad school. Always found these types of reactions with self-reenforcing quite interesting.
Reminds me of another paper where just stirring a solution or not would determine the chirality of crystals formed and gives an idea how highly chiral environments can arise from "nothing":
Chiral symmetry breaking in sodium chlorate crystallizaton https://doi.org/10.1126/science.250.4983.975
I remember an offhand comment from a professor in grad school about the origin of chirality in life, he said some people had speculated it had to do with parity of the electroweak force (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1985Natur.318..172T/abstra...) or something like that, but it always seemed unlikely because the energy difference due to that is so tiny that it would be hard for a single or small number of events to be biased significantly in one direction.
The popular information is always a great read for non-experts! https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/chemistry/2026/popular-inf...
We have matter-antimatter asymmetry in physics... and now I just learned there's a similar concept in chemistry (one variant frequently occurs in life while the other mirrored variant is rarely found in nature)
Related to this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror-image_life
Yes, this sounds like a situation where progress in that field may have led them to go back and give more credit to the original experiments going in that direction
Mirror-image life obviously depends on chirality. But chirality is very relevant without it. It is a fundamental aspect of chemistry (and biology).
Yes, that should be evident from the first paragraph of each article.
Does this imply a parity violation (and thus that the weak force must somehow ultimately be in involved in the reaction)?
No, in this case neither isomer is inherently preferred, i.e. if you repeat the reaction you could end up with the opposite isomer, but in each run the symmetry is broken leading to an excess of just one.
(Though what you're saying is not impossible per se, I think I read an experimental proposal a while ago which suggested achieving just that, iirc by using parity violation to generate chiral photons which then initiate some kind of reaction!)
This is a plot point in one of my most favourite science fiction novels by Roger Zelazny... bit of a spoiler, so ROT13:
_Qbbejnlf va gur Fnaq_
which still has my favourite life situation for a protagonist (room, board, tuition and generous stipend so long as he attends his uncle's alma mater until such time as he graduates....)
As a right-handed person, I find this deeply offensive and request all left-handed life be destroyed at once!!
That said, would it be possible to make "right-handed" food that is safe to eat, satisfies the psychological urge to consume food in every sensory measure, but still contributes 0 calories?
See also this discussion about this in the sci-fi series The Expanse, where a planet has bi-chiral organisms (able to use both versions of these molecules): https://www.reddit.com/r/TheExpanse/comments/i4e187/a_small_...
Chirality is quite interesting!
For 1m I thought I would re learn chemistry. Then I remembered how diff it was at the uni.
Throughout my life as a student from elementary school to university, I’ve had so many teachers with an extremely diverse ability to actually teach that I no longer think of any subject as inherently hard or easy. I always think it’s a bad teacher or a bad textbook. When I self-studied chemistry I switched textbooks three times before I found one that really matched the way I think.