Astronomers discover complex carbon molecules in interstellar space(sciencealert.com)
sciencealert.com
Astronomers discover complex carbon molecules in interstellar space
https://www.sciencealert.com/astronomers-discover-complex-carbon-molecules-in-interstellar-space
39 comments
Life has to be monochiral because biochemical reactions are catalyzed by physical machines- enzymes, where an entirely different physical shape of the enzyme active site would be required for it to work with the opposite isomer. Any particular DNA sequence that evolves to make a protein will only be able to work with one orientation- unless the enzyme was so floppy and flexible that it reacts with everything, which would be inherently dangerous to a living cell.
Think about trying to “evolve” a glove that fits perfectly on both hands yet is also specific and does not accidentally fit onto non-hands… it would be much harder and less likely than evolving one that only fits left or only right hands.
Spontaneous chemical reactions that make the things we find in space never had to physically fit into a machine like a key into a lock, so both chiral isomers are equally likely to form.
Think about trying to “evolve” a glove that fits perfectly on both hands yet is also specific and does not accidentally fit onto non-hands… it would be much harder and less likely than evolving one that only fits left or only right hands.
Spontaneous chemical reactions that make the things we find in space never had to physically fit into a machine like a key into a lock, so both chiral isomers are equally likely to form.
"Both" don't have to be represented in the same place at the same time. And even then, I could imagine them competing. I mean if both can work, why should only one exist?
PS: I mean both as in separate ecosystems. Not arguing that one organism could contain both.
PS: I mean both as in separate ecosystems. Not arguing that one organism could contain both.
I agree, but as far as we know life evolved only once, and particular chiral orientations in central carbon metabolism were then locked forever, because they can't be changed without breaking everything else. The same enzymes won't generally work with both steroisomers- every enzyme they interact with needs radical structural changes.
Less critical things outside of central carbon metabolism often do evolve different stereoisomers in different species, or even the same species. For example, the large macrocyclic antibiotic molecules sometimes evolve to flip sterochemistry, creating a new antibiotic.
Less critical things outside of central carbon metabolism often do evolve different stereoisomers in different species, or even the same species. For example, the large macrocyclic antibiotic molecules sometimes evolve to flip sterochemistry, creating a new antibiotic.
Why should we talk about "same enzymes"? There's a 50% chance to have "other enzymes" working for the other orientation, whenever we find life similar to ours (which it doesn't have to be). Or is there any reason why other orientation cannot exist?
For any multistep reaction there is a strong likelihood that "other enzymes" would make something that does not work for the next step (depends on the 3d shape not fitting in the next enzyme). So at best some of the intermediary products for each organism with opposite chirality enzymes may not work in the other, at worst, it may be actively poisonous. Since time + competition breeds monopoly one would expect to see only one per competition zone (i.e. planet) given sufficient time. You could see both if there was an active breakdown mechanism developed in each that allowed minimally inefficient usage of the others resources (i.e. we see this on a macro level with things like lobster blood using copper instead of iron and being blue. We can still eat each other no problem without getting sick so there's no pressure to get rid of the one system)
If you’re talking about hypothetical extraterrestrial life that evolved separately- sure. But as far as we know all life, at least on earth has a common ancestor and is heavily locked into the existing enzymes and substrates- basic central carbon metabolism is virtually identical in all living things.
there is a good argument to be made that there is exactly one life form on this planet,with various
sub types speaking different dna dialects, and there exists a kind of universal mutual comprehension of the base language in between all life forms
the explanation of chirality is very good
Does propylene oxide demonstrate a "propeller effect" like some other handed chiral molecules?
From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41873531 :
> "Chiral Colloidal Molecules And Observation of The Propeller Effect" https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3856768/
From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41873531 :
> "Chiral Colloidal Molecules And Observation of The Propeller Effect" https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3856768/
I wonder something similar on a larger scale...
I wonder if planets revolve around stars cw vs ccw evenly distributed.
(and could these kinds of things be related?)
I wonder if planets revolve around stars cw vs ccw evenly distributed.
(and could these kinds of things be related?)
> I wonder if planets revolve around stars cw vs ccw evenly distributed.
Depends on whether you view it from one side or the other, no? Or, how do you define which side of a planetary system is the "top"?
Depends on whether you view it from one side or the other, no? Or, how do you define which side of a planetary system is the "top"?
Doesn't matter. The names for the directions are arbitrary and you can pick whatever frame of reference you like. The question was only if the directions are distributed randomly.
… of course it matters?
Sure, the names CW/CCW don't matter. But I first have to determine an orientation for each star system, to look at it to see if it is spinning CW or CCW. If I don't, then we cannot decide which way it's spinning, since it's spinning CW from one view, but CCW from another.
E.g., let's say I orient each star system in the galaxy such that it appears to be spinning CW: then by definition, all star systems appear to spin CW. I could choose the other method, and now all star systems spin CCW, despite nothing in the universe changing. I could orient them randomly, and it'd be 50/50. But that tells us nothing: we're sampling how we orient the system to sample it, not any innate quality of the universe.
That is, the entire question, to me, is how do you pick a frame of reference, since there seems to be nothing upon which to pin a frame of reference to.
Sure, the names CW/CCW don't matter. But I first have to determine an orientation for each star system, to look at it to see if it is spinning CW or CCW. If I don't, then we cannot decide which way it's spinning, since it's spinning CW from one view, but CCW from another.
E.g., let's say I orient each star system in the galaxy such that it appears to be spinning CW: then by definition, all star systems appear to spin CW. I could choose the other method, and now all star systems spin CCW, despite nothing in the universe changing. I could orient them randomly, and it'd be 50/50. But that tells us nothing: we're sampling how we orient the system to sample it, not any innate quality of the universe.
That is, the entire question, to me, is how do you pick a frame of reference, since there seems to be nothing upon which to pin a frame of reference to.
Are you telling me you don't know what the term "frame of reference" means or how to establish one?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_of_reference
You are looking for some sort of absolute reference. A "frame" of reference is arbitrary and relative. It's something you just make up and the rules which you made up apply only relatively and within that frame.
When you look at a paper map, it says North on it, pointing to the "top" of the page. That north is not the real North. It points in whatever random direction the paper happens to be pointing. The paper is a frame of reference, and that "north" only applies relative to everything else on that paper.
If you turn the paper 90 degrees, North no longer points "up" relative to your eyes (although, now it may point "up" relative to my eyes since I am not you but standing next to you).
So that particular instance of "north" is arbitrary. There is no higher or more absolute reference that it is based on.
You pick any direction you want and call it "north", because you can lay that paper down on a table in any direction you want. And it doesn't matter what direction you picked. There is nothing special about "up relative to my eyes" because your eyes point in a random direction. Your eyes and the table and the paper are all somewhere on the surface of a sphere called Earth for one thing, your eyes and the paper might be pointing in any direction at all in 3d space simply by being anywhere on the surface of a sphere. Let alone that the sphere is rotating and travelling in an orbit which itself is in a larger orbit etc etc.
The distribution of celestial objects is full of uniqueness. It's one huge fingerprint. So it is possible to pick identifiers. You can pick objects and then recognize them later from their positions relative to other objects, like finding the north star by recognizing the big dipper.
You can pick any 3 stars and say "For the purposes of the next 5 minutes, let's call this star A and this star B and this star C. A is the north pole, B is the south pole, C is 12 o-clock or 0 degrees, and degrees count up clockwise when looking from north to south."
Congratulations. You just created a coordinate system that you can apply to the entire imagined universe. All other objects can be described in relation to this reference.
That is a frame of reference. There is no "north", you just picked a random direction and said "This is north. Now, relative to that, what directions do the axis of rotations of all other objects point?"
Probably for this question and really all others, it makes more sense to use a rule that "north" for any object is always described relative to it's own direction of rotation. IE rather than saying "this solar system rotates CCW", what you measure is the angle of each objects own local "north" relative to the universal north you made up. Each objects own local "north" would be pointing up from a clock face matching it's rotation.
It does not matter at all which objects you picked for A, B, and C. All that matters is that you use those same points and relationship rules for all subsequent measurements.
(Also since everything, including A, B, and C, are always moving, there is a 4th point of reference which is some arbitrary single point in time)
And for the purpose of the question about random distribution, it does not matter what direction you happened to pick to call north, because we don't care what the directions of all other objects are called, or what they refer to, only are they distributed randomly or is there a bell curve, or some other non-random plot?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_of_reference
You are looking for some sort of absolute reference. A "frame" of reference is arbitrary and relative. It's something you just make up and the rules which you made up apply only relatively and within that frame.
When you look at a paper map, it says North on it, pointing to the "top" of the page. That north is not the real North. It points in whatever random direction the paper happens to be pointing. The paper is a frame of reference, and that "north" only applies relative to everything else on that paper.
If you turn the paper 90 degrees, North no longer points "up" relative to your eyes (although, now it may point "up" relative to my eyes since I am not you but standing next to you).
So that particular instance of "north" is arbitrary. There is no higher or more absolute reference that it is based on.
You pick any direction you want and call it "north", because you can lay that paper down on a table in any direction you want. And it doesn't matter what direction you picked. There is nothing special about "up relative to my eyes" because your eyes point in a random direction. Your eyes and the table and the paper are all somewhere on the surface of a sphere called Earth for one thing, your eyes and the paper might be pointing in any direction at all in 3d space simply by being anywhere on the surface of a sphere. Let alone that the sphere is rotating and travelling in an orbit which itself is in a larger orbit etc etc.
The distribution of celestial objects is full of uniqueness. It's one huge fingerprint. So it is possible to pick identifiers. You can pick objects and then recognize them later from their positions relative to other objects, like finding the north star by recognizing the big dipper.
You can pick any 3 stars and say "For the purposes of the next 5 minutes, let's call this star A and this star B and this star C. A is the north pole, B is the south pole, C is 12 o-clock or 0 degrees, and degrees count up clockwise when looking from north to south."
Congratulations. You just created a coordinate system that you can apply to the entire imagined universe. All other objects can be described in relation to this reference.
That is a frame of reference. There is no "north", you just picked a random direction and said "This is north. Now, relative to that, what directions do the axis of rotations of all other objects point?"
Probably for this question and really all others, it makes more sense to use a rule that "north" for any object is always described relative to it's own direction of rotation. IE rather than saying "this solar system rotates CCW", what you measure is the angle of each objects own local "north" relative to the universal north you made up. Each objects own local "north" would be pointing up from a clock face matching it's rotation.
It does not matter at all which objects you picked for A, B, and C. All that matters is that you use those same points and relationship rules for all subsequent measurements.
(Also since everything, including A, B, and C, are always moving, there is a 4th point of reference which is some arbitrary single point in time)
And for the purpose of the question about random distribution, it does not matter what direction you happened to pick to call north, because we don't care what the directions of all other objects are called, or what they refer to, only are they distributed randomly or is there a bell curve, or some other non-random plot?
> Are you telling me you don't know what the term "frame of reference" means
… I know what a frame of reference is.
> or how to establish one?
That's the entire question, here. For a given star system, how do you establish a frame of reference to then decide whether the system as a CW or CCW spin, without the determination being arbitrary, since we're asking to learn something about nature here.
> You can pick any 3 stars and say "For the purposes of the next 5 minutes, let's call this star A and this star B and this star C. A is the north pole, B is the south pole, C is 12 o-clock or 0 degrees, and degrees count up clockwise when looking from north to south."
We were trying to establish the spin of a star system. Short of it being a binary star system, there's one star.
We can't really consider multiple star systems simultaneously, as it wouldn't make any sense. Say you pick a star at random, A; you arbitrarily designate one of the two poles of the star as "north", and "up" as a vector straight up from the star's "north" pole. First, the CCW/CW rotation of star system A hasn't been decided by any fundamental law of the universe, it's been decided by our choice alone. Had we chosen the other pole to designate as north, then the rotation is reversed.
If we go to a second system, B, and maintain our definition of "up" as "up in the A system" … that makes no sense. This system could be edge-on the the up vector from A. For B's rotation, we need a vector perpendicular to the plane of system B.
(Whether a system is CCW or CW is going to be about the "up" vector, but the "up" vector for a system has to be from the system's center, and then perpendicular to the plane of rotation.)
… I know what a frame of reference is.
> or how to establish one?
That's the entire question, here. For a given star system, how do you establish a frame of reference to then decide whether the system as a CW or CCW spin, without the determination being arbitrary, since we're asking to learn something about nature here.
> You can pick any 3 stars and say "For the purposes of the next 5 minutes, let's call this star A and this star B and this star C. A is the north pole, B is the south pole, C is 12 o-clock or 0 degrees, and degrees count up clockwise when looking from north to south."
We were trying to establish the spin of a star system. Short of it being a binary star system, there's one star.
We can't really consider multiple star systems simultaneously, as it wouldn't make any sense. Say you pick a star at random, A; you arbitrarily designate one of the two poles of the star as "north", and "up" as a vector straight up from the star's "north" pole. First, the CCW/CW rotation of star system A hasn't been decided by any fundamental law of the universe, it's been decided by our choice alone. Had we chosen the other pole to designate as north, then the rotation is reversed.
If we go to a second system, B, and maintain our definition of "up" as "up in the A system" … that makes no sense. This system could be edge-on the the up vector from A. For B's rotation, we need a vector perpendicular to the plane of system B.
(Whether a system is CCW or CW is going to be about the "up" vector, but the "up" vector for a system has to be from the system's center, and then perpendicular to the plane of rotation.)
Rotation can be described as a vector, pointing along the axis of rotation. You could imagine writing down the vectors for all of the objects in a planetary system, and doing some kind of statistics on the numbers to see if there was a preference for a particular axis. You could use a sign convention such as the right hand rule.
The rotation vector is associated with another, which is angular momentum. The reason why there's all kinds of spinny stuff in a solar system, or a galaxy, is that the massive objects jointly conserve the total angular momentum of the blob of dust that the system coalesced from.
Neutrinos are another beast, they have a preference for one direction of their spin quantum number:
https://neutrinos.fnal.gov/mysteries/handedness/
In fact you could use the spin of neutrinos to say that the sign convention for rotation is not arbitrary.
The rotation vector is associated with another, which is angular momentum. The reason why there's all kinds of spinny stuff in a solar system, or a galaxy, is that the massive objects jointly conserve the total angular momentum of the blob of dust that the system coalesced from.
Neutrinos are another beast, they have a preference for one direction of their spin quantum number:
https://neutrinos.fnal.gov/mysteries/handedness/
In fact you could use the spin of neutrinos to say that the sign convention for rotation is not arbitrary.
To put the questions differently: assume we look at all the planets from the perspective of a single point (say, Earth), why do some spin one way (cw) and some spin the other way (ccw)? Are cc and ccw evenly distributed?
They seem to spin in different directions because you are observing them from a single point - earth.
Consider the following. You and I are standing on opposite sides of a pane of glass. I spin a wheel parallel to the pane of glass and we both observe it. From my side of the glass the wheel is spinning clockwise. From your point of view (because you are seeing the opposite side of the wheel) it is spinning counterclockwise.
Whether a given rotation is clockwise or counterclockwise depends entirely on your reference frame - they really don't have a robust definition that doesn't depend on the pov of the observer.
There is a really excellent and clear description of the problem and solution to this that is employed in classical mechanics here[1] but if you only care about the solution, by convention we employ the right hand rule. If you and I both agree a common direction in the plane of rotation of the wheel say parallel to the floor off to the side (whichever side doesn't matter but for one of us it will be to the left and the other right), point our right hand index finger in that direction (called r hat or the direction of radial motion) and curl our two smallest fingers in the direction of rotation of the wheel, our thumbs will be pointing parallel with one another. This would be called n hat (normal motion), and is the direction of any vectors which are the cross product of two vectors in the plane of rotation of the wheel. As a bonus if you make your right hand middle finger perpendicular to the index finger you have theta hat (tangential motion). Now even though you and I can't agree whether the wheel is spinning clockwise or counterclockwise we have three identical basis vectors and can use these to form a common polar coordinate system to describe this rotating system.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q785KV5ZIN0&t=45s
Consider the following. You and I are standing on opposite sides of a pane of glass. I spin a wheel parallel to the pane of glass and we both observe it. From my side of the glass the wheel is spinning clockwise. From your point of view (because you are seeing the opposite side of the wheel) it is spinning counterclockwise.
Whether a given rotation is clockwise or counterclockwise depends entirely on your reference frame - they really don't have a robust definition that doesn't depend on the pov of the observer.
There is a really excellent and clear description of the problem and solution to this that is employed in classical mechanics here[1] but if you only care about the solution, by convention we employ the right hand rule. If you and I both agree a common direction in the plane of rotation of the wheel say parallel to the floor off to the side (whichever side doesn't matter but for one of us it will be to the left and the other right), point our right hand index finger in that direction (called r hat or the direction of radial motion) and curl our two smallest fingers in the direction of rotation of the wheel, our thumbs will be pointing parallel with one another. This would be called n hat (normal motion), and is the direction of any vectors which are the cross product of two vectors in the plane of rotation of the wheel. As a bonus if you make your right hand middle finger perpendicular to the index finger you have theta hat (tangential motion). Now even though you and I can't agree whether the wheel is spinning clockwise or counterclockwise we have three identical basis vectors and can use these to form a common polar coordinate system to describe this rotating system.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q785KV5ZIN0&t=45s
I'm trying to say it doesn't matter where you observe it from. If one thing is spinning one way, and another the opposite way. Whether you see it from your side, or my side, the directions of the two things are opposite. Am I wrong?
For the purposes of saying which spin there are more of (and we have observed a slight preference for one), we'd need to agree on which one is cw and which way is ccw. The slight bias is for ccw, as viewed from out planets North Pole, though it's not known if this is merely an observation bias or pervasive.
They are asking whether the distribution of the direction of rotation of all rotating celestial bodies is equally distributed, for this it is irrelevant which direction of rotation is designated and how.
hmmm, maybe not as analogous to chirality as I thought?
If you consider the North Pole to be the top of the Earth, then the Earth rotates counter clockwise, and so does the Sun, and the Earth orbits the Sun ccw also.
This is true for most of the other planets also and they orbit in the same plane.
And this is true for most stars in the galaxy and the rotation of the galaxy itself too.
So it's pretty much all counter-clockwise.
This is true for most of the other planets also and they orbit in the same plane.
And this is true for most stars in the galaxy and the rotation of the galaxy itself too.
So it's pretty much all counter-clockwise.
And if you consider the South pole to be the top of the Earth then the Earth rotates clockwise and so does the sun and the eath orbits the sun clockwise also. It's pretty much all an arbitrary convention and depends on your frame of reference.
If you define North to be "the pole that if it's on the top then things rotate counterclockwise" and that's consistent then that's equivalent to the definition of an orientable Euclidian space I think, and I'm glad that's the case for our universe because things would be mighty weird if it weren't. You could shift your breakfast around the table and it would come back as a mirror image of itself.
Joking aside as I understand it any orientable 3-d space admits two orientations, which are defined by the choice of the surface normal n. If you do it the way I said in a sibling post with the right-hand rule then n is pointing paralel to the axis of the Earth with positive in the direction of the North pole, the rotation is counterclockwise from that perspective and everything is groovy. But we could equally use our left hand, our thumb would point South and the rotation of the Earth would be clockwise. In that case we are choosing to orient using the other possible surface normal (-n).
If you define North to be "the pole that if it's on the top then things rotate counterclockwise" and that's consistent then that's equivalent to the definition of an orientable Euclidian space I think, and I'm glad that's the case for our universe because things would be mighty weird if it weren't. You could shift your breakfast around the table and it would come back as a mirror image of itself.
Joking aside as I understand it any orientable 3-d space admits two orientations, which are defined by the choice of the surface normal n. If you do it the way I said in a sibling post with the right-hand rule then n is pointing paralel to the axis of the Earth with positive in the direction of the North pole, the rotation is counterclockwise from that perspective and everything is groovy. But we could equally use our left hand, our thumb would point South and the rotation of the Earth would be clockwise. In that case we are choosing to orient using the other possible surface normal (-n).
If you take the South Pole as the top, then the Earth rotates clockwise, which is the SAME (this is the important bit) as the Sun, which is the SAME as the solar system, which is the SAME as the Galaxy. They're (nearly) all clockwise.
The Sun and most planets and in general stuff rotates in the same direction because it formed from a cloud that had some movement, caused by a bifurcation at some point of its formation. Bifurcation meaning losing balance in chaos and moving away from that initial unstable equilibrium into a significant motion.
So it shouldn't be surprising stuff is for the most part moving in the same direction. It's surprising when something isn't, probably because it was hit by some body changing its angular velocity.
The same goes for the alignment of equators.
So it shouldn't be surprising stuff is for the most part moving in the same direction. It's surprising when something isn't, probably because it was hit by some body changing its angular velocity.
The same goes for the alignment of equators.
Samples from space of an iso-energetic chiral molecule are going to show a racemic mix. Unless there's a discrete reaction path favoring handedness.
Just saying that on the same webpage there was a link to an article about the guy with three p*nises...
Hate to disappoint anyone searching, but it turns out two of them were vestigial and fully enclosed, to the point the deceased individual probably never realized it. Although if he did, giving his body to medical science was a great way to let everybody else know...
I was rather under impression that this whole news source was just spreading things catchy but made up, including said carbomolecule..
[deleted]
uBlock is your friend unless you're in to that sort of thing. Not that there's anything wrong with it...
Does uBlock leave some kind of explanation in the place of the ad telling you what overall quality of ad it was? Like, the message you are responding to isn't complaining about having to see the link: they are noting that this kind of cross-promotion might lead one to discredit the content we are reading, as it is kind of an important signal, not merely noise.
ha ha ha ha,I so lucky!,I block everything,and get away with it!
the largest part of my reading on hn is the comments,as many many of the commentors know a lot more than the writers and scientist,and just realised that if it were not for some brave volenteers reading the articles to get the comments going,I would be so much poorer
This is a shitty news source, please use a better one
I'm beginning to think that I might remove them from my source. Almost all of their articles are reprints of the reprints of originals from elsewhere. I haven’t checked and cleaned my sources in more than a year. I will do a retrospection during the yearly cleanup in December.
Do you have any recomendation? Sometimes the same press release is posted by different news blogs. If there is a better one or the original one, dang may decide to change it.
It would be really amazing if we were able to know if both chiralities are equally represented in the space. Apart from the life itself it is astonishingly interesting how life evolved to be monochiral.