Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: > Mauro Lacy wrote: > >> Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: >> >>> Frank Roarty wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> s >>>> identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message >>>> has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or >>>> labelNo, but I'll read about it. Reciprocal space sounds like a mirror >>>> space >>>> to me. By example, using the fourth dimension, you can invert a >>>> tridimensional sphere without breaking it. That is, you can put the >>>> inside out and viceversa, through a rotation over a fourth dimensional >>>> space, in the same way as you can invert a bidimensional figure by >>>> rotating it in a three dimensional space. >>>> >>>> >>> But you can't -- not just by rotating it. >>> >>> >> Hi >> >> Of course you can't do that in three dimensions. That's the whole point >> of using a fourth. I was drawing an analogy. The bidimensional >> equivalent will be the following (please excuse my "ascii art"). >> Suppose you have an asymetrical figure, like to one below: >> original figure: >> >> ---------- >> |____ | >> | | >> | | >> | | >> | | >> ----- >> > > > You're talking about flipping chirality. > By the way, "chirality flip" is a very interesting consequence of a higher dimensional rotation. Specially if imagined in the right context... More on this later, probably. I have to read (and think about) a lot of things, and I'm actually very busy with other things (work and (real?) life).
Mauro
