You can observe the chirality of some molecules from the crystals they form, sometimes they twist clockwise, other times they twist counter clockwise. Which way they twist is dependent on their molecular structure.
this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2025
82 points (97.7% liked)
Asklemmy
44924 readers
705 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Infinity and Black Hole
For me, it's the sheer scale of celestial bodies.
Our Sun is humongous. UY Scuti's radius is 1700 times larger - 185300 times larger than the Earth's. And then there's TON 618, which has a mass 66 billion times larger than our Sun's.
And even those are barely grains of sand when compared to solar and galactic structures... It is humbling, to say the least.
Edit 2: I deleted the previous edit, because my first observation is correct (scale is maintained when going from comparing radii to comparing diameters...), which is why I have an Arts degree.
load more comments
(2 replies)
If math is actually uncovering fundamental laws of the universe, rather than just describing it at various scales, then there's a chance we can rewrite reality with our own set of rules that would render the current ones incompatible (by GΓΆdel's-IT).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis
Tegmark's MUH is the hypothesis that our external physical reality is a mathematical structure.[3] That is, the physical universe is not merely described by mathematics, but is mathematics β specifically, a mathematical structure.
Look, I only heard about this concept, so maybe there's more to it, but branches of mathematics are just a set of rules that we create.
Sometimes these rules can be applied to real systems, in our reality, and that helps to describe and understand the universe.
But it's totally possible to come up with infinite nonsensical, useless mathematical systems that have nothing to do with the universe. The existence of these doesn't mean that we have or could rewrite reality.
If our universe is bound by the laws of mathematics (big IF), then any theorem discovered within it has to be consistent or incomplete w.r.t it.
If a theorem is discovered that upends math as we know it, then the repercussions could be cosmic.
Again, big if about the universe being bound by the laws of maths
load more comments
(4 replies)
95% of our DNA is basically useless gibberish. Since the evolutionary incentive to shorten it is so small in our case, all sorts of processes "hijack" it to propagate themselves without giving anything back.
load more comments
(2 replies)
There are more stars in the visible universe than there are grains of sand on all the beaches in the world.
In chemistry I was taught one carbon atom can exist in at least 12 separate living bodies before it's no longer stable.
Hon I think you maybe misunderstood your chem class.
Carbon is carbon is carbon and doesn't know or care if it's in a living body.
Carbon-14 has a half life of 5700 years. This means that through random decay, the approximate rate of decay is one half of a given amount every 5700 years, this of course breaks down when you reach the single-digit quantities of atoms.
Now, this has nothing to do with the stability of an atom of regular-ass carbon-12, your common garden variety carbon, which is extremely stable and would require outside influence to decay into another isotope.
load more comments
(2 replies)
that doesn't make any sense. Carbon doesn't get less stable by being used in bodies.
Carbon 14 exists, but that decays regardless if it's in a body or not. At has quite a long half life
Yea, I misremembered it. It was in my book from a while back. Here we go:
At least is a heavy lifting qualifier in this case.
What does that mean?
After you die, the carbon atoms that made you might go on to make another living thing.
load more comments
(3 replies)