Thank you for this comment.

Beyond your direct observation correlating racemates and entropy, I am
interested in the polarization. In addition, you made a comment to
another post that's been at the center of my struggle to reconcile
emperical obervations with the necessary languages of physics - the
math & an understanding of the context and association to understood/
accepted theory.

"The model appears to be extremely empirical. Where are the error bars
in such a mathematical mess." "?"

I've been trying to get to a point where my emperical description can
at least acknowledge where the messes are. Just the few exchanges on
this list + looking at how other list questions are treated is helping
me. I'll try to make a clear emperical case in a day or 2. My thanks
to all.

"Richard D. Saam" ) writes:
Igor Khavkine wrote:
On Feb 4, 7:29 pm, gdaebfc wrote:

A quick caveat: While I'm clear on my personal understanding of the
picture I want to paint, I'm working with a palette of concepts and
formulas that are, for me, extremely difficult to use. So, I apologize
in advance for being unclear and putting you in a position of
deciphering my intentions when, in fairness, I should only be asking
you to look at my thoughts.

I'm sorry that you see a difficulty there. But at the same time I fail
to see why you should be faced with this difficulty. Simple and direct
worked for Newton: "I saw an apple fall from rest at height ...m; it
hit the ground after ...s." I see no reason why this case should be
any different. If it is not clear which empirical phenomenon this
conversation is about, we might as well be talking about the number of
angels on the head of a pin. And I don't find that a useful
conversation to have.

[...]
You have targeted the main point to this particular query. Chirality
is understood to be a property in matter. In my process of
investigating a bigger picture, I've identified a question to
research: Where does chirality originate?

Chirality, in the sense that the configuration of pixels in the letter
L is chiral, is not a conserved quantity. It can be created or
destroyed. Take a wire and bend it into a helix. Bam! You've just
created some chirality; straighten it back out, and you've just
destroyed some. Similar processes happen in nature all the time,
without human intervention. This is not particularly deep or
difficult.

Hope this helps.

Igor

There may be a measurable aspect of chirality
in terms of Entropy of mixing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_of_mixing

Walter J. Moore, Physical Chemistry, Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1962.

Racemate crystal
is almost always lower in energy than that of a resolved
enantiomer perhaps because of entropy of mixing.

entropy = - R summation(i) X(i) ln(X(i))

Component 1 Component 2 X(1)ln(X(1)) + X(2)ln(X(2))
1.00 0.0 0.0
0.90 0.1 0.325082973
0.80 0.2 0.500402424
0.70 0.3 0.610864302
0.60 0.4 0.673011667
0.50 0.5 0.693147181 maximum entropy
0.40 0.6 0.673011667
0.30 0.7 0.610864302
0.20 0.8 0.500402424
0.10 0.9 0.325082973
0.00 1.0 0.0

Do the math:

entropy/c2 yields mass units at about a few parts in 10^13

At what temperature (since dimensionally [S] =[E]/[T] )? Maybe all you
need to do is run the temperature down to a few picokelvin.

--John Park

That ought to create enough noise in the experiment
to keep people guessing/discussing Eotvos Parity EP for years.