Organic chemistry is life; everything else is waiting. Explanations of biological homochirality's origin are poor at best (read: pathetic),
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 41(24) 4619 (2002)
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 41(7) 1139 (2002)
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 39(22) 4033 (2000)
Chem. Phys. Chem. 2(7) 409 (2001)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 84(17) 3811 (2000)
Quantitative geometric chirality is rigorously defned by mathematican Michel Petitjean, including its calculation in QCM software,
Petitjean, Michel, J. Math. Phys. 43(8) 4147 (2002)
http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itoweb.petitjean.html
http://petitjeanmichel.free.fr/itowe...eware.html#QCM
It's a truly nasty field to study as pure math,
http://www.mdpi.net/entropy/papers/e5030271.pdf
Review of quantitative geometric chirality
As long as you are in homogeneous isotropic solution, an organiker's view is good enough for an organiker(e.g., ORD spectroscopy) even though it has little rigor and is seriously wrong at its edges,
J. Mol. Phys. 43(6) 1395 (1981)
J. Appl. Cryst. 19 108 (1986)
J. Chem. Phys. 65(4) 1522 (1976)
Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 38 3418 (1999)
Chem. Rev. 98(7) 2391 (1998)
J. Am. Chem. Soc. 108 5539 (1986)
Nature 405(6789) 932 (2000)
----------------
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm